Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 December	15 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 delete. –MuZemike 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo (musician)

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

I'm not finding notability sufficient for a stand-alone article for this musician; perhaps a merge/redirect is in order. Tagged for notability for over 2 years Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This tiny stub mostly duplicates info already included in Girugamesh, the subject's only source of notability as far as I could find. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shares the same name as a Japanese golfer, which makes research hard, but I can't find anything on a musician by this name... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I favor a merge as is our usual practice with band members who are not so much notable themselves. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with merging whatever is referenced and appropriate in the band article (and not already in it), which at this point only seems to be some of the material in the first sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuu (musician)

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

I'm not finding notability sufficient for a stand-alone article for this musician; perhaps a merge/redirect is in order. Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but create redirect for Shuu (not "Shuu (musician)") to Girugamesh. This tiny stub mostly duplicates info already included in Girugamesh, the subject's only source of notability, as far as I could find. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed that the band seems quite notable, though the members don't seem to have any press coverage outside of articles on the band as a whole. Not sure what the need for a redirect is, but it doesn't hurt anything. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I favor a merge per nom as is our usual practice with band members who are not so much notable themselves. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be against a merge of any RS-supported relevant information into the band article. At the moment, however, there is no RS-supported text in this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jole Radonjić

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

Exists, but I can't find indicia of notability either in the article or in RSs. Tagged for notability since June. Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No notability.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - There may be coverage in Serbian which I am unable to find, but at this point, there is no clear claim to notability, and the sourcing is inadequate as the one source is simply a mention in a concert announcement. I was able to find another two concert announcements but those don't represent the sourcing needed to establish notability. There is no explicit discography on the artist's web site so I am unable to get a handle on his body of work. This video would indicate he appeared on a morning show on a major broadcast network, but that is also not indication of notability (I've appeared on Breakfast Television, and I'm not notable). -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amru Salahuddien

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

While he exists, I cannot find sufficient coverage about this person to meet our notability standards. Others are welcome to try. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability and as an orphan for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My search reveals no indication of notability that would satisfy WP:Creative - I've no doubt he's a photographer, but not notable at present. - ManicSpider (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find photojournalism credits (e.g., [1], [2], [3]. His resume on the Egyptian government web site gives some information about minor awards and exhibitions but nothing that would appear to indicate he would meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of sourcing and notability regarding a BLP, especially with regard to contentious material, take precedent here, and this was what the arguments for deletion basically summarized here. –MuZemike 23:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Mullone

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

Delete per Wikipedia:Libel. Stubbleboy 23:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that link apply to this article? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see nothing in the article that would justify deletion based on BLP criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for libel as per nom, but for any lack of notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Van Cuylenberg

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

He exists, but I can't find sufficient RS coverage (more than trivial). Tagged for notability since this past June. Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some sources use a different spelling: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Only reference that makes a incidental quotation. Does every person that is quoted in the news need an article? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. An optimist on the run! 08:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrul Saad

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

Delete. Youth footballer has not played professional football in any league. Does not meet topical notability for football players in accordance with Australian rules football, Association football, or American or Canadian football. Additionally fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he plays in the Malaysian 2nd tier, which is not fully-professional, so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and fails the creteria for this article. --Katarighe (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nii (musician)

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

I'm not finding notability sufficient for a stand-alone article for this musician; perhaps a merge/redirect is in order. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add a line to NII disambiguation page, with a link to Girugamesh article. This tiny stub mostly duplicates info already included in Girugamesh, the subject's only source of notability, as far as I could find. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I favor a merge as is our usual practice with band members who are not so much notable themselves. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Suzuki

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability, searching this model/actress in both English and Japanese. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a Japanese soft-core porn actress of no particular note. Beware of false hits--a couple of the more promising ones turned out to be for an unrelated Washington State lawyer. If substantial, secondary coverage from WP:RS sources can be found, I will have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay bathhouses in the United Kingdom

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

This article is the product of the merger of the articles on Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch, which I completed in the wake of the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome. I subsequently wrote on the article's talk page, "I encourage editors in this topic area (because I am certainly not one of them!) to make this article more about gay bathhouses in the U.K. in general, and less about the two specific bathhouses whose articles have been merged into this one." However, upon further reflection, I believe that this article runs afoul of WP:NOTTRAVEL ("Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in...travelogues, and the like"), and that due to the nature of the article, this problem is unlikely to be fixed. Encyclopedic material on the broader topic belongs in Gay bathhouses. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome was to merge the individual articles into this one, not delete the content. WP:NOTRAVEL is meant for articles of topics that don't have significant coverage as these topics do. --Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominal topic does not seem to be notable and the format seems too directory-like with addresses, lists of facilities, &c. If individual establishments are notable then they should be covered in their own articles. Merging not-notable content together does not make it notable and tends to promote improper synthesis. Warden (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem mostly to be junk. For example, a Wikipedia article is cited as a source. The book Gay Bathhouses and Public Health Policy is cited when this is about North America, not the UK. And then there's a lot of gossipy stuff about footballers which doesn't amount to coverage of the topic. For an example of an article about about a genuine UK institution, see Molly house. Warden (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree: the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome was to merge the individual articles into this one, not delete the content.----85.18.98.160 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Batstone

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability of this musician. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has played with notable musicians, and is the writer of "I Still Have Dreams" which was the title track from one of Richie Furay's solo albums. I can find no indication of chart success and Furay's article calls it a "mild hit". Batstone, as co-writer, was nominated for a Dove Award. There's not enough here to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Duncan

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability re this artist. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notable as guest on tv shows, which is very dubious. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local mentions, but no substantial coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gagliardi

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

I can't find sufficient indicia of notability of this writer, whose article has been tagged for notability for well over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG and WP:AUTH not met. A google search - and a look at his Linkdn profile - doesn't suggest notability either. Colon el Tom 03:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnianism

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

Original research, it belongs on a blog not on Wikipedia JDDJS (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Strastev

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability of this person. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability and as an orphan since May 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find secondary sources to indicate his notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching, can find no reliable sources to indicate notability. I have a sneaking suspicion that this might not be the case if I spoke Russian, but I don't. - ManicSpider (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Poorly written page on non-notable person. Vincelord (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raman monthly journal

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

Website/journal. A7 declined (not applicable to journal), PROD removed by article creator. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Layout Engine

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

I found no significant coverage. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not establish notability either. --Kvng (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - search reveals a lot of WP:NSOFT-compliant sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you post them? I couldn't easily find them. – Pnm (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first three I could find with a couple of seconds: [4], [5] and [6]. I have no interest in actually searching references for this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those appear to be reliable sources, and I don't think they provide significant coverage either. – Pnm (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brief second search in one search engine, which proves the ability of development for this software. Furthermore, it is used in other products, so more detail search can reveal more links. I don't think that "I don't care" is a good reason to make any actions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for better sources, but didn't find anything suitable. There's nothing in Books except Wikipedia books. One bullet point on one set of slides in Scholar. I agree that "I don't care" isn't a good reason to delete, but it's not a good reason to keep, either. – Pnm (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pnm, why do you not consider these to be reliable? They look pretty good to me. I now understand what GLE is. I have withdrawn my vote until I hear back. --Kvng (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither self-published sources such as blogs nor sites which provide user-generated content are normally considered reliable sources. See Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. – Pnm (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added three additional references to GLE's page. As far as I know, there is no official book about GLE. Is this required for an open source software project to have earn an entry on Wikipedia? Janstruyf (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign Your comments! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there doesn't need to be an official book. The general notability guideline is explained pretty simply in this essay: WP:42. – Pnm (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first reference is not independent of the subject. The second reference is a download page. The third reference is unreliable. The fourth reference is a download page. How does that show notability? SL93 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the three references above - The first one is a blog. The second one is a blog. The third one allows news submissions from anyone. Really? SL93 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changing vote. Czarkoff refs establish notability. My reading of WP:USERG does not disqualify them. People out there clearly think this is a useful utility. --Kvng (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS says "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable" and offers only two exceptions: (1) published experts and (2) sources writing about themselves. How does WP:USERG not disqualify all three of the sources Czarkoff posted? – Pnm (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not read the list of WP:USERG exceptions as exhaustive. The refs are a bit better than a blog or a forum. My personal criteria for WP:RS establishing notability is more permissive than for citations. --Kvng (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GLE definitely worth an entry in Wikipedia. It's an active open-source software useful for documents producing. May be the actual entry should be completed with some examples of scripts and output results? --84.100.6.215 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StreamWIDE

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

I found this which is the same as [7] and they both read as press releases. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom is not clear why the article is up for deletion. At the moment the article is blatant advertising, full of peacock phrases, and referencing only the StreamWIDE website. We can clean up the puffery but what would be left? The News hits seem to be just press releases. Perhaps someone knows of better sources? If not, we'd better delete.Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mention it, but I didn't think that I had to. WP:N or if this refers to the company itself, WP:CORP. It does read as an advertisement, but I didn't add a speedy tag because the article has been around for 3 years. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:CORP and is blatant WP:SPAM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reality on Demand

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

Submitting this one on account of WP:TOOSOON here. Hate to say this, but the series has no base of notability yet, and the sources include an IMDB entry, the show's webpage, another site with a trailer, and that's about it. It sounds like fun, but on account of WP:ILIKEIT, it shouldn't yet be here in this editor's opinion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've added three news stories that talk about the show as references if that helps any. User:GenreGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenreGuru (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review our reliable sources guidelines, as well as our general notability guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must agree with Dennis here, as WP:ILIKEIT rules the day... today. Perhaps notability will be established in February/March, once the thing premieres, or later, should one of the principals themselves become notable. --Seduisant (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, and WP:ADVERTISING. References are not independent third-parties that establish notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Neary

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

No assertion of notability per WP:AUTHOR; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Filing Flunky (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A young author with two novels published by a small publisher and only one review in a third-party source. She may in future merit an article but at present I don't see sufficient indication of notability. --Deskford (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not quite sure what ‘young’ has to do with anything unless you feel someone should be excluded on age alone. The Scottish Parliament congratulated Neary on the publication of her first novel as being one of Scotland’s youngest authors of 2009.

You’ll find there is far more than one review and not just by third party sources out there. Neary is well known in Glasgow for performances and in literarily circles. The page article needs to more content agreed but deletion would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.28.91 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — 81.103.28.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoarding (Psychology of)

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

The article effectively duplicates content from Compulsive hoarding. There may be potential for a merge, but this is the part I'm not entirely sure.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete duplicate and poorly written and original research. JDDJS (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't justify a speedy on dupe, as it is not a word for word duplicate. Poorly written and WP:OR are not valid for speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything that distinguishes this as a topic distinct from compulsive hoarding. If there is anything of value worth adding into compulsive hoarding, it should be done before this AFD concludes. Peacock (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hanley

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. This article was previously kept at AFD in December 2009, as he was then a candidate in the British election of 2010; but he was unsuccessful, and past precedents have made clear that being a political candidate isn't by itself grounds for notability. In this case, although there are claims of notability in the article, I simply can't find any significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources, only directory reports (lists of candidates, lists of solicitors, etc). Robofish (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. In fact in my opinion the previous AfD was wrongly decided. Four people argued for delete and two for keep, but the "keep" arguments amounted, as I pointed out at the time, to (1) "he is not notable, but who knows: maybe one day he will be" and (2) "there is some secondary source coverage (but am not telling you where it is)". The closing admin should have given very little (if any) weight to these arguments, as the first is totally contrary to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the second is completely unverifiable. Meanwhile, the four who argued for deletion pointed out the lack of coverage in independent sources. (It is also worth noting that one of the "keeps" was really "keep until the election is over, and then delete if he loses", and he did lose, so we are left with only one person arguing for "keep", on the grounds that "I know there are sources", without telling us what they are.) I have now searched again for sources, and found his profiles on the web site of the company he works for and the web site of the political party he is a member of, Linkedin, MySpace, FaceBook, a blog post about him written by another member of the same party, one brief paragraph about him on the web site of "The Telegraph", which has such paragraphs on everyone who stands as a candidate in a British election, and so on. I found nothing whatsoever that could by any stretch be regarded as substantial coverage in independent sources. He fails to satisfy the general notability guideline, or any part of Wikipedia:Notability (people), including WP:POLITICIAN. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As a failed political candidate he is clearly NN (see WP:POLITICIAN). Secondary material (such as newspapers) can be found on many people, but that does not make them notable. Newspapers are WP:RS, though not necessarily the best sources. HOwever the fact that there are reliable sources on a subject does not make it/him notable. I suspect that the previous AFD was in the run up to the General election when we were willing to be a little kinder to candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:JamesBWatson sums it up very neatly. Pburka (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article was created by Jamie Hanley himself and seems to be mostly for self-promotion (it was me who added the connected contributor tag). I don't really think it adds anything. mh. (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I launched the original AfD in 2009. I agree with the all views expressed so far. Dupont Circle (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close; nomination opened in wrong forum. Will open an RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Masters at Moss Creek

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

Incorrect name for tournament. There are multiple references to prove this and here are a couple.^[1]^[2] So there is no need for this page or a redirect.- William 20:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The last keep !vote points to some notability, which those supporting for deletion have not rebutted nor responded to. –MuZemike 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-1000MP

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flagship product of this company. Just like the other Yaesu deletions, I expect to be able to find reliable third party sources that establish notability. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 6-page review in the April 1996 edition of QST (Journal of the American Radio Relay League) (available on-line only to ARRL members, but AGF, I promise it's there) and another 6 page review of the updated version in November 2000. ARRL calls this product the "gold standard" in its class (August 2002 QST). There have been many more articles in QST reporting that winners of major amateur radio contests are using this product, and dozens of articles covering modifications, repairs, etc. Just because this product is aimed at a niche market with minimal journals available to generate coverage, does not make it NN. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:46, 15 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 Martin County, Kentucky. –MuZemike 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin County Sheriff's Office

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

It's your typical sheriff's office in some Kentucky county! Clearly fails the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 20:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin County, Kentucky. The only reference is the website of the sheriff's office, which is not independent. Given that the population of the county is less than 13,000 people, it is unlikely that this small agency has anything more than routine coverage in local newspapers. The best place to discuss it is in the government section of the county article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete per nom or redirect to Martin County. The Martin County in Kentucky is just one of six counties by that name in the United States, and it isn't the most populous one of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 15 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 Minutes to Midnight (album). –MuZemike 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No More Sorrow (Linkin Park)

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

Song is not noteworthy; never released to radio. Calabe 1992 20:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to parent album.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minutes to Midnight (album) as per above. No significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 10:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esh (Unix)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, as it applies to products. Googling suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect – Well it does exist and I can find a couple of valid independent book sources that mention it. But there's no substantial information, so I recommend redirecting to Unix shell and adding a one-liner description there. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Care to post those sources? – Pnm (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sources suggest otherwise, this is a non-notable shell and would be indiscriminate detail in the list at Unix shell. I could only find primary sources, and one sentence in this book. – Pnm (talk) 00:19, 15 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. Disregarding the single-purpose activity, there is a clear consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Reitano

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

The article does not establish notability of the subject - as far as I'm aware being a Socialite-Journalist isn't sufficient. I've checked a few of the (dozens of) external links and they appear to be newspaper/blog reports written by HR - not about HR. The references are all offline, but their titles do not inspire confidence that they establish notability of this person. DexDor (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as significant coverage of this person in sources independent of the subject has not been demonstrated nor is likely to be. asnac (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~All external links off line and blogs have been removed and other added to establish notability~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.28.151.105 (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This person article a well know Journalist, Socialite, and from prominet background, article very Trustworthy, Objective, Complete and Well-written. Not for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.27.84 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment asnac please note that in his External links you will find several independent sources, as Telegraph Fashion link were HR is invited by Her Majesty's representative at Ascot to the Royal Enclosure and then to the Winners Enclosure (only winners and VIP) then Getty the biggest photography agency in the world take a photo of HR and published in their site for sale, the Telegraph one of the most respectable newspapers in the UK purchase (from thousand taken that day) and published the photo with Liz Hurley (a well known actress) and HR for a note, Extenal link of Richard kay Daily Mail writes how HR socialite saves actress Kara Tointon from burning (Kara call him her hero). External link of Sorrel William interview of HR hole page on the Sunday edition of the Buenos Aires Herald (oldest English newspaper in South America 1876), this are to mention a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollsroyce2012 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not for Deletion Socialite-Journalist of importance as HR are sufficient for the article ( other Socialites Journalists Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, Nicky Haslam)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollsroyce2012 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Rollsroyce2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Rollsroyce2012, please see WP:CREATIVE which explains how the subject's notability needs to be demonstrated. If you can provide references in independent sources showing that the subject meets the criteria, please do so. asnac (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC) PS I've put fuller details about criteria on your talk page. asnac (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not for deletion useful article as demonstrated in his page view statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles5511 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Charles5511 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment A large number of SPAs have been contributing to the article and to this debate and a sockpuppetry investigation has been opened. asnac (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry and above comments The sockpuppetry investigation has found that the IPs and named users responsible for the contributions recommending 'keep' have been abusing the system, and bans have been put in place. asnac (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not for deletionVery good Wikipedia entry as we follow newspaper stories it give us solid information about journalists otherwise impossible to get from Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.207.61 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets struck through because sockpuppets' recommendations are discounted in AfD discussions as per AfD guidance. asnac (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Rakitzis

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. All the sources I could find by Googling are either primary sources (e.g., his paper about his es shell) or trivial. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the projects he's worked on nor is there evidence to support a presumption of notability under WP:CREATIVE. Msnicki (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Evans

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

A person whose only claim of notability is that he put a coin under the ice before a hockey game. Fails the WP:BLP1E test and the "substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources" test (because while he has gotten coverage, it's hardly what one could call substantial coverage about him.) This can quite easily be dealt with in one or two sentences in the appropriate other articles (i.e. the hockey games, the "good luck charm" section of loonie, etc.), and hardly requires a separate article about him as an individual. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:58, 15 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 Tube map. Courcelles 21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animals on the Underground

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

Cute, but not notable Egg Centric 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, I'd have to agree that this organization in particular doesn't meet encylopedic criteria beyond its mention in the article Tube Map under Cultural references. Stubbleboy 20:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This does merit a couple of sentences and perhaps a picture on the main article, but no more. It's going to remain a search term so we should redirect the title to Tube map#Cultural references. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as Thryduulf. The subject is worth preserving, but an advertising campaign (even a sustained one) hardly deserves an article of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 16 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. Courcelles 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading My Eyes

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

Song is not noteworthy; never charted. Calabe 1992 19:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this song; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 10:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The demo could be notable, but there is no chance a song from the demo is notable.--Neo139 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Castro (actor)

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

This bio contains no sources and subject does not appear notable. No useful hits on Gsearch. asnac (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is an actor, however it appears only for Puerto Rican Theater. I don't participate on es.wikipedia, however I did verify that no article exists for him there. Stubbleboy 20:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRINK (magazine)

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

Delete. Fails notability requirements. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Stubbleboy 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 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 Michigan Wolverines football. Courcelles 21:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of historically significant Michigan Wolverines football games

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

Not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Possibly suitable for another wiki. Fails to meet WP:LISTN. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dunno, there seem to be a lot of sources documenting some of these games. On the other hand, though, who picks which games to list? There seem to be flaws, clearly, but I'm not convinced that this isn't salvageable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would compiling a list like this count as WP:OR? Also don't like the title- "Historically significant..." is a bit strong. The Battle of Leipzig was historically significant.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subjective and compiled based on original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's the subjective nature of this list that moves it into WP:OR. It's a bit like having an article titled List of Shakespeare's Best Plays. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that technically this should be a delete, but I hate to do that when so much work has gone into an article. I have noticed that the article Michigan Wolverines football has some big gaps in the history section and a lot of the material here could be used there, so some kind of merge might be possible. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought this article might be a can of worms when it cropped up about a week ago. I agree with Tigerboy1966 that much of the content here could be repurposed in prose form for the history section of Michigan Wolverines football. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarityfiend below. The second North American qualifying round of the 1970 FIFA World Cup had an "historically significant" football game. None of those in this list really are. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan Wolverines football#History, which looks a trifle bare. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 8 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, causa sui (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL we have a consensus here, seriously.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is the "collectable plates" interpretation of notability. Just because it is possible to assemble a set of sources that support_(sic) an article, it's no reason to believe that article must then become encyclopedically relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Content should be WP:PRESERVEd into Michigan Wolverines football#History or appropriate season specific article (from list at List of Michigan Wolverines football seasons)—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boughton Law Corporation

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

Article is apparently a promotional mechanism for an apparently non-notable law firm in Canada. Does not qualify for speedy due to assertion of notability. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After researching the firm itself, it appears to be nothing more than a full service Vancouver law firm located in Downtown Vancouver, Canada. Stubbleboy 19:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty average law firm, not really exceptional, no reason to be on Wikipedia. Probably put there by an employee to get its name out there on a larger scale. Don't think there will be a huge argument on this one. The answer is pretty obvious. Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a badly written article. I strongly agree with the deletion of this article.

--Rubinkumar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of SonBeam Channel programs

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

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

Failed {{prod}} Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs:

Delete. Poorly sourced and most importantly, not notable. A search only brought up articles and links that were put out by the company itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unremarkable radio programs lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources --RadioFan (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dare to Dream Network programs

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

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

Failed {{prod}} Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs:

Delete. I looked and was unable to find anything about this channel that wasn't put out by the network it's a part of. Sad to say, but this is just not a notable network at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unremarkable radio programs lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources --RadioFan (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3ABN Proclaim! programs

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

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

Failed {{prod}} Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs:

Delete. A search brought up nothing to show that this channel (and by extension the shows on it) pass notability guidelines per WP:GNG. No reliable sources could be found at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unremarkable radio programs lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources --RadioFan (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3ABN Latino programs

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

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

Failed {{prod}} without explanation Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs:

Delete. There's just nothing to show that this is notable enough to need a list of programming.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unremarkable radio programs lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources --RadioFan (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serenade for a cuckoo

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

Non-notable song that was never released as a single from either artist. Unsourced, and unverifiable from reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Incorrect as well, the song is "Serenade to a Cuckoo". Tassedethe (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 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. Courcelles 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tomic

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

None of the claims of significance in the article can be verified by any reliable source that I can find. Only one of the "references" in the article actually mentions Tomic, and that one is at www.christomic.com. It appears to be a copy of an article in a magazine called "H!", but I can find very little about that magazine in reliable sources, and its ___domain name is now available for anyone who wants to buy it. (See http://www.h-magazine.com/?srt=1) The Wikipedia article claims that Tomic "invented the protocol for mobile micropayments over SMS". However, Google searches for various relevant search terms, such as "SMS Tomic" and "micropayments Tomic" have failed to produce any source for this statement. The article at www.christomic.com refers to "Chris Tomic of Fashion TV", and the article was created by FTV Media Group, and most of its subsequent editing has been done by the accounts Chris Tomic, Ctomic, and Ftv2011, so that it is evident that the article is self promotion. Ctomic also has a history of making false claims of importance in another article that he created. In summary, the article is promotional, makes claims which cannot be verified in any reliable sources, gives no references to independent reliable sources, and is about a subject for which I cannot find any independent evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources do not even list him individually, and the one that does is his own website. Seems he fails general notability guidelines with such a weak claim, and even this weak claim to fame can't be verified in any known reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Verifiability is not optional. Violating WP:AUTOBIO is bad enough, but puffing yourself up is atrocious. "The music is louder when someone else blows your horn" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There's a lot of puffery going on in this article, if not outright fibbing. I searched for Tomic's name and nothing came up except Tomic's blog, various promotional pages, and this article. For someone who supposedly invented ringtones, there isn't a thing about him accomplishing this in any reliable sites. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

It should also be noted that most of the articles I have found credit Vesa-Matti Paananen as the pioneer/creator of the ringtone, which goes against Tomic's claim of being the creator of the ringtone. This page should absolutely be salted to prevent its recreation and if it hasn't been done already, have Chris Tomic, Ctomic, and Ftv2011 blocked. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete - nothing notable and too much puffery to be credible. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Oh, my. The case for deletion doesn't get more than obvious this. Especially silly were the supposed secondary sources, none of which even mentioned the individual. Facebook pages also don't count, even if you have lots of friends. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION, for publishing your WP:Autobiography or for use as your personal website. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 15 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 Userfied per discussion at ANI. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion and Satirical Newspapers in today's Media Industry

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

WP:NOTESSAY Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion...". See also WP:VAGUEWAVE and note that WP:ESSAY is just an index of Wikipedia essays. Warden (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this article is part of an educational project. The author is a new Wikipedian and a university student. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct, the correct link is WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:OR. Why not give a non procedural response instead of being pedantic? Part of the educational project should be teaching students (and their professors who created this assignment, and their ambassadors) what appropriate articles for wikipedia are. These articles are great school papers. School papers do not belong on wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the adaptation of term papers into encyclopedia articles is something very desirable, if they're well researched, wikified, and written to form. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR and NOTESSAY. That it may serve a function for the author is meaningless, and in spite of it's many fine qualities as an essay, it isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly merge at some later date) I agree with Colonel Warden here, a link is not a deletion rationale. essay-ish articles and OR can be fixed through editing, only in severe cases should an article be deleted for this, per WP:ATD. I think that there is salvageable content here. 137.43.188.153 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — 137.43.188.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Pretty clearly an essay, pretty clearly a serious contribution. I'd hope the closing administrator will constrain the outcomes here to KEEP, MERGE, or USERFY, in the name of DO NOT BITE THE NEWCOMERS. No opinion how to play this myself at the moment, I'll return to it when I get a chance. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have written a longish communication to the new content contributor giving them my take on the situation, hopefully getting them up to speed. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on your talk as well, but I think what you wrote is great. I think you should submit that as a new rough draft template for twinkle or something for articles that get AFDed, as it gives way more information and easy letdown than what currently happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, well-written piece that I'm sorry to say does not belong as a Wikipedia article as it is synthesis and original research. Parts of this could certainly be merged into the regular Onion article, which could probably do with a section on its impact on society. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as a fork of The Onion. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I presume the nominator meant to link to WP:NOTESSAY, and if so, it'd be a good idea to fix that up now to keep the procedural wiki-lawyering to a minimum. "Not Essay" and original research concerns abound with this entry, it reads as a personal observation of the media and satirical news sourced. An interesting read, but more suited for the OpEds or a blog. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy because this is an academic assignment which is inappropriate for the mainspace (in particular, its last paragraph blatantly violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by editorializing). Userfying would allow the article creator to try to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Userify: The content is an essay. "Satirical news sources have become a staple in today’s media." Actually, this is not a new development, satirical news goes way back, at least into the early 1800s (and perhaps longer but that's outside my knowledge area). And "There is an ongoing debate as whether or not satirical newspapers should be brought on as dailies. Satirical newspapers should not be published as dailies." Yes, they should be published twice-daily.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC). Change !vote to userify. Oh vey re the class project, a huge disconnect is going on there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Metropolitan90 and because thee article's talk page says "This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term." This doesn't belong in the main space, but it also doesn't belong at AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has been brought to the attention of ANI since it's the third article from this class to come to AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmedia and its Digital Reinvention

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

Huge essay. Good content should be merged to Postmedia, the parent article, which is barely a stub. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as ... merging". Warden (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument for deletion was WP:ESSAY. The merge was just saying that there may be some content worth saving. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - correction - : Quite correct, the correct link is WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is still a speedy keep. Merger may well be sensible but it is not achieved by deletion so you have come to the wrong place. Please see WP:MAD which explain the legal licensing constraint. Another editor had already started a merge proposal so this nomination is redundant - please withdraw it. Warden (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this article is part of an educational project. The author is a new Wikipedian and a university student. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the project should be teaching the students what appropriate articles for wikipedia are. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Our hope is that the student will return to the page and properly wikify the article. Any help (guidance, for example) from the community is always appreciated. Jaobar (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and NOTESSAY, just as above. Again, in spite of it's many fine qualities as an essay, it isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and NOTESSAY; if there's any content in here that's suitable for an encyclopedia, then merge it into Postmedia Network. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be a good idea if students on this kind of project were advised to start by finding a redlink.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it's obvious original research and painfully slanted. This actually made sense in parts, which puts it a cut above the prose that's usually found in these things. It actually contains a kernel of information, even if it currently reads like Make Money Fast In Our Digital Future. (Sorry. Been reading Adorno.) Postmedia News and Postmedia Network are notable businesses with significant impacts on history and culture, though apparently not technology yet. The name of the business combined with the title makes this give a very bad first impression. ("Postmedia?" MEGO!) I certainly wouldn't mind seeing this userfied. Its sources and a bit of its text could eventually be used to improve real articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy The article's creator is a member of this class, which is supported by both WikiPriject Wikipedia and Wikpiedia Ambassadors. I don't believe this article belongs at AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This has been brought to the attention of ANI since it's the third article from this class to come to AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there may be some usable content, but from the title onward there are problems with Essay form. Point of View and Original research.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - per User:PaintedCarpet. ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close AFD and let the merge discussion continue elsewhere. There was a merge tag placed on the article at the time this was nominated to AFD. [8] An article should never be nominated for deletion its first day out. Discuss what's wrong with it on the talk page, before trying to delete it. Dream Focus 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. Being part of educational project is not a free pass to put up unencyclopedic articles. The teachers running this project deserve to be trouted for not understanding the medium before they waded in with others following them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obviously, delete. And while I acknowledge this is part of an educational project, it should probably not be userfied, since it has no encyclopedic potential per its very nature (like a lot of the articles that are part of this educational project). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not userfy. We are not a webhost for academic projects. causa sui (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Likely however, the two pages should be merged; or at least renamed. Courcelles 21:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of Santa Cruz County, California

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

This is a clear violation of WP:NOT, as this is noting more than a bird spotting checklist for a single county. Doesn't list its sources, but it is likely to a verbatim copy of another list, making it a likely copyright violation. Daniel 15:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN. For example, see A List of the Land Birds of Santa Cruz County or Birds of Santa Cruz County: a list. The article does list its source - the nominator does not appear to have read the references section. You can see details of that source at http://santacruzbirdclub.org/SCZchecklistJuly312006.pdf. As our version is summarised and reformatted and the information is plain facts then this seems to be fair dealing. It would be trivial to reformat the table further and add more sources, if required. Warden (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the reason this was broken into two articles was because in 2003‎ articles over 35K in size received advisory warnings to break the articles up into smaller bits. There's no reason today against combining these two into one articleKingturtle = (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the other piece to which you refer, please? Warden (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I see the continued link now. Warden (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep List of birds of Santa Cruz County, California. Satisfies LISTN. Merge List of birds of Santa Cruz County, California (continued) into List of birds of Santa Cruz County, California. It does not appear that the resulting list would be too long. James500 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of birds of Santa Cruz County, California, list is notable, although the two articles could probably be merged into one article without it being incredibly huge. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the list clearly could use some improvement of individual entries, it also clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:NOTESAL. Nothing about this list runs afoul of WP:NOT. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Thadeshwar

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

All the references are from publications that this 20 year old "founded" a few months ago. The rest are twitter and facebook. Not notable. Borderline spam/vanity/A7. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy userfy to User:Jaysoniindia as apparent autobiography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude based interview

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

non notable interview technique, primarily spamvertizement Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it hard to see how this technique is "notable" by itself. Nom is 100% on the money with this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Attitude based interview is a structured set of questions (17 in total) that allows to create an extensive individual profile of someone’s attitudes, work and motivation strategies. You do not only listen to the specific content, but you also hold the structure of the answer into account. This way you actually ‘understand’ a person and are able to predict future behaviour. You actually can decode an individual, a job, a team and even a whole organization. That's what horoscopes are for. And, let me guess. The seventeen magic questions aren't going to be in the article, right? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this interview technique. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A9 Courcelles 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Life

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

non notable album, by non notable band. See : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UnSun Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 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. A9 Courcelles 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper (UnSun song)

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

non notable single, by non notable band. (Band is going through AFD, and looks like it is being deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UnSun Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 15 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. –MuZemike 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maris the Great

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

sounds promotional, conflict of interest serioushat 14:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a promotional performance artist based in Denver, Colorado, and "undead" frontman for the punk rock band, Maris the Great and the Faggots of Death. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the original contributor to the page, I'd like to note that I'm a big fan of Maris and also a creative writer who tends to focus on entertaining rather than journalistic writing. Because of this, I expected some of the wording would be edited if Wikipedia felt the sources didn't justify the use of adjectives. However, I'm surprised it is up for deletion. Of the 19 times I cited a reference, 10 of them are major independent sources, both national and local. Five are direct links to media listed in the Videography and Appearances sections to support that those videos and appearances are valid. Only four are sources associated with the subject. Two are to support that the notable bands listed as appearing on his website actually appeared there. One was for information on his back story, which is fictional material best sourced from its creator. The last came from the promoter for the venue where Maris did some of his shows. I used it because it gave the most detailed description I could find of a Maris the Great show. Bogeycat (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are ample independent sources to support the notability of the subject. Most if not all of them are reliable according to Wikipedia's standards, including Rue Morgue Magazine, Westword, and Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles. The few references to self-published sources were used properly. The subject of the article is best known for his website, and it is included to verify what it is said to contain. I concur that the tone is probably not formal enough, but this can be fixed with editing and doesn't require deletion of the whole page. If someone were willing to point out specific problems (preferably after reading the publications they were sourced from), I would be more than happy to attempt a rewrite. Bogeycat (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yikes. The entire article needs to be re-written for neutrality. Bogeycat, if you wrote any of the non-neutral sections of the article, I highly urge you to visit WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION to see what is and is not acceptable as far as phrasing and tone of articles go. From what I can see, the entire article needs to be re-written for neutrality. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional. I noticed that some of the references merely state what magazine the quote supposedly came from rather than actually list which article, which issue, or any specifics about when the quotes actually came about. You need just a little more info than that, to be honest. It helps, but you need more than just "Maris was talked about in some random issue of Mayhem". Also, be aware that as far as sources go, anything that is put out by anyone that has a vested interest in seeing Maris succeed (such as a promoter for a venue Maris performs in) cannot be a reliable source. I'm also worried that you might have copied from the venue site, so I'll be checking into that. Copying from any source is not allowed. Quotes are fine, but be careful of turning the article into a WP:QUOTEFARM.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Ah. I see what you did there. Late night for me, I guess.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional Additional. Youtube is not generally considered to be a reliable source because anyone can upload a video and the copyright there is sort of iffy. For the most part the only times I've seen youtube used as a reliable source is when it's linked to a known uploader (such as BBC or CNN) and is a news story about the person or subject in question. In this case you just link to a music video. This is not considered to be a reliable source because it just proves that the video exists. The video existing does not infer notability. I also highly urge you to read WP:RS. Also, anything that only briefly mentions Maris is not considered to be a reliable source that shows notability, nor does anything that just quotes him or any routine notifications of upcoming performances. I also want to note that you should always write an article in an encyclopedic tone. Never assume that someone will come around and edit after you for the article to be more encyclopedic or neutral. While this can often be the case, especially in very visible articles, there are articles on Wikipedia that are created and then gone unnoticed and untouched for years. Always edit with the assumption that your article will be deleted and/or tagged for various issues because it just might. When in doubt, always ask for help. Even if it's a note on the page of another user, ask for help if you aren't sure if the article is written correctly or that something might not be properly done. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. While I was in the process of cleaning up the article, I also checked out the links and removed the ones that aren't considered reliable sources. It does seem that Maris is notable. A niche performer, to be sure, but notable within his niche. The article should be far more encyclopedic now, so the promotional issue should be solved for the most part. As far as conflict of issue goes, if Bogeycat is related to Maris in any shape other than just being a fan (since someone did mention a COI), I recommend that she or he goes through another party to add anything to the article, most preferably through Wikipedia:WikiProject Music since they're most familiar with writing music related articles. I'm willing to help too, if needs be.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Kissing Girls

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

Non-notable soft-porn video series. Article consists purely of a product listing taken from the producer's advertisements. No other sources except for a couple of nominations (not actual awards) for some porn-industry-internal awards; zero coverage independent of the industry's own publicity machinery. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several sub-articles are currently also nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Kissing Girls 1: Young Lesbians in Love. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one nomination for an individual movie, none for an individual scene. Zero wins. I do see a couple of reviews for individual titles on the xcritic site, although that site doesn't seem to have a WP article, so no idea if it's useful, or just a paid PR site or puffed-up blog. A few stray mentions on blogs and forums. I just don't see evidence that meets WP:N. If better sourcing can be found, happy to revisit. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PORNBIO says that a pornographic actor is considered notable if s/he "has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years". This film series has been nominated for well-known awards in multiple years, so how is it different? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response:
  1. None of the individual titles in the series appear to be notable.
  2. AVN best actor/actress, best newcomer awards? Okay, I'll give you "well-known" for those. XBIZ All-Girl Series of the Year? AVN Best All-Girl Series? With fifteeen series nominated every year? Exactly how many of AVN's girl-on-girl series advertisers did not get nominated, pray tell?
  3. And, anyway, PORNBIO deals with people, not film series. I don't believe that there is a WP guideline on film series in general, let alone for porn series.
  4. Lastly, whether or not the subject fits the guideline and, if so, meets the guideline, it fails the policy of WP:N, for lack of substantial coverage from multiple, independent WP:RS sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Response to your response:
    1. That is why all the invidiual titles don't have their own articles.
    2. The argument that fifteen series get nominated every year is irrelevant, as I see no guideline that says that such a stipulation makes an entire series non-notable.
    3. The argument was brought up here as a reason to delete the article (by failing the guideline), but now you're pretty much saying the guideline doesn't qualify because WP:PORNBIO deals with people, not films. You can't have it both ways.
    4. How are the AVN and XBIZ websites not independent sources? You even said that you saw some independent reviews. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further responses to Erpert (the creator of this article):

I appreciate your conceding that none of the individual titles are notable.
You are avoiding the question. The guideline says "well-known", and I have pointed out that the specific awards that this series has ~~won~~ been nominated for are not well-known. If you can provide good evidence that XBIZ All-Girl Series of the Year and AVN Best All-Girl Series are "well-known", then I will change my mind.
You are wrong, I can have it both ways. I am arguing that the guideline does not apply to this series but that, even if it did, it fails to meet the guideline.
"You even said that you saw some independent reviews." No, I said that I saw some stray reviews of unknown reliability or independence. If you can demonstrate that xcritic.com is both, that would be definitely help the case.

"How are the AVN and XBIZ websites not independent sources?"

Per AVN Awards, "Awards often go to consistent advertisers in AVN."^[3]

Per XBIZ Awards, "The award nominations are submitted by clients, and the winners are voted for by XBiz staff, industry colleagues and participating organizations." ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs)

I didn't say none of the individual titles are notable; I said not all of them are. Get it right, please.
XBIZ and AVN Awards aren't well-known? The XBIZ Awards have been given out since 2003, and the AVN Awards have been given out since 1984! Maybe they aren't well-known to you.
I can't respond to that because what you said doesn't make any sense.
I posted some independent reviews in the Girls Kissing Girls 3 article...and before you jump to this conclusion, I used the staff reviews, not the customer reviews. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the above discussion is futile and a little bizarre, as it tries to apply WP:PORNBIO on something that is not a BIO... We have only a guideline for films and it is WP:NOTFILM. It requires Awards, not nominations.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that guideline says that an award is one thing that may deem a film notable, not the only thing. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom says it well: this is basically a listing, provided for by the company sources, with no evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benny M. Abante

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

Non-notable preacher. Search for third party sources only comes up with Wiki page, some hits on Twitter and a couple of YouTube clips. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. There is much wrong with this article, but it doesn't matter since the subject matter fails WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just restored the article a the last good version without a fan-POV. The article passes WP:POLITICIAN Criteria 1 as the subject is a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines. The following will have better hits. --Bluemask (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as cleaned up by Bluemask. A Gnews search confirms that he is a former Filipino Congressman, passing WP:POLITICIAN. Still needs work but is fixable through editing. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If he really was an elected politician in Philippines I would of course withdraw the nomination. Sorry, I did not pick that up at all originally. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - 2nd Comment. Assuming we do keep (which looks likely), suggest we Move to his true name. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see talk of keeping because he was elected to office, but there are no references, only one 404 ext. link (unrelated to any election, it is a church website, which fails wp:rs for the claims given), which would still make it BLP Prod material as unverified. I can't change or see to keep *any* BLP without references. Perhaps someone could find a reliable source before we get all excited about moving or keeping. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try Google News? I'm finding multiple hits confirming that he held the office, such as this one and this one. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an easy keep, this should be moved either to "Bienvenido Abante" (as stated above) or to "Benny Abante" (basically the current title w/o the middle initial). –H T D 03:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it was also very easy to find references, I got lazy writing an article since there were too many. It's easy to bitch about an article not having references, harder to find some, and harder still to write something from those references. –H T D 03:49, 15 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. Courcelles 21:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hughes (drummer)

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

I don't think a "gigging drummer" really quite cuts it for WP:MUSICBIO. Not sourced. Not categorized. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Steve Hughes the Mortal Sin drummer has a separate article, so it is not clear who this Steve Hughes is. Kauffner (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. I would likely have BLPProded it or CSDed it. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Can't find anything about this Steve Hughes in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD-A7: an article about a real person that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:49, 15 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. Courcelles 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Keita

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

Has not played in a WP:FPL; fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:ATHLETE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school soccer player. Web search shows little evidence of substantial coverage from WP:RS sources, mostly social media and directory listings. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable youngster. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:30, 15 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. Courcelles 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Keita

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

Has not played in a WP:FPL; fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:ATHLETE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school soccer player. Web search shows little evidence of substantial coverage from WP:RS sources, mostly social media and directory listings. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable youngster. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:29, 15 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. Courcelles 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mualigbe Keita

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

Has not played in a WP:FPL; fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:ATHLETE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, a player in development academy isn't close to qualifying under WP:ATHLETE. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school soccer player. Web search shows little evidence of substantial coverage from WP:RS sources, mostly social media and directory listings. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable youngster. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this article passes any notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad Jaman

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

Has not played in a WP:FPL; fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:ATHLETE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league football player. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plays soccer for community college and an amateur team. Very little to see in web searches. Badly fails WP:N. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable youngster. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:29, 15 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. Courcelles 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Yonga

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

Has not played in a WP:FPL; fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:ATHLETE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College soccer player, also plays on a (presumably amateur) 4th-division US team. Web searches find just a faint amount of local coverage, in addition to social media. Fails WP:N. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable youngster. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:29, 15 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. Courcelles 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Kanneh

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

Has not played in a WP:FPL; fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:ATHLETE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plays amateur and college soccer. Has played a few games for US men's under-18 team. Ghits are social media, directories, minor local news coverage, and WP mirror sites. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable youngster. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:28, 15 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. Courcelles 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timemesh

(Find video game sources: "Timemesh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Google search returns nothing outside of its official website and found no secondary news sources. Although funded by European Commission, notability is not inherited and this appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghits just seem to be primary sources, social media, and WP and its mirrors, in several European languages. Fails WP:N. If better sourcing can be found, happy to reevaluate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People Trends Magazine

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

Low-circulation magazine with no assertion of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMAGAZINE. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous editor. Filing Flunky (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Filing Flunky (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the nominator also attempted to use speedy delete criteria A7 to delete this. Magazines are not eligible for an A7 speedy deletion. Therefore this page was not speedy deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Blogs and wikis do not reliable sources make. As to prior tries at A7, I really don't care and it adds nothing to this conversation and looks more like a personal jab at the nominator. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at this point, not discussed in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Four-year-old, low circulation, self-described "lifestyle" magazine without substantial coverage from WP:RS sources = not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable publication. Keb25 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of now, it appears to be relatively undiscussed in reliable sources. ~~Although there is no specific notability guideline for magazines,~~ it does appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). Chris (talk | contribs) 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMAGAZINE, which had been brought up before. My fault for skimming. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boeing 247. Project consensus, as represented in WP:N and its subpages, is that inclusion as a standalone article is dependent on coverage in reliable sources. The "keep" argument by Dream Focus and Tarheel95 does not take this into account and submit that all aircraft crashes are notable. Such arguments are ungrounded in policy (see WP:ITSA) and are therefore discounted for the purpose of assessing consensus. Sandstein 16:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Cheyenne test crash

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

Declined PROD. No comment was made when the prod was declined beyond "adding ref" - but that doesn't address the PROD at all. Prod reasoning: "Completely non-notable accident. Did not occur in revenue service; no lasting impact; no continuing coverage." All of which still apply. In the 1930s, aircraft - including airliners - cracked up regulary during test flying; this is no different than any number of other crashes. While it technically meets the standard of WP:AIRCRASH (the relevant notability essay) for inclusion in the Boeing 247 article, it has a complete failure of WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though deserves expansion of a line or two. Checkout the accident report, which appears to support deletion/merge (no real lessons learned from this crash, no recommendations). Some WP:COMMONSENSE is required here in interpreting the WP:AIRCRASH essay guidelines here for a non-revenue test flight for an airline. Although I believe any given crash in 1935 carries more weight than a comparable crash today, I do not see how this specific crash is notable enough to have its own article, rather than part of the Boeing 247 article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(add.) Maybe that was phrased poorly, instead I'll rather have said: it's notable, but will NEVER be able to be expanded beyond three lines of encyclopedic text. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. WP:AIRCRASH (a non-policy, non-guideline) needs a crash course in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, the reveant content is already in the Boeing 247 article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just because it was a test flight does not necessarily mean that it was not notable. Coverage would probably have been in contemporary newspapers. Merge without prejudice to recreation if/when these sources can be found. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, when I said "common sense" I meant a case-by-case basis. I see that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Wings incident doesn't have its own entry (though probably should). Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 is a gripping story of a joy ride gone wrong. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive-by" copy/paste rationale. Article inclusion isn't based upon sourcing within articles themselves. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's based on such sources existing - which, for this accident, they do not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Associated press coverage, October 31, 1935:

Associated Press (October 31, 1935). "Cheyenne, WY United Airlines Plane Crashes". Centralia Daily Chronicle (Washington). Retrieved December 5, 2011.

An historical event with coverage in reliable sources, way before the Internet existed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the continuing coverage? This fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER completely; there is zero notability here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All crashes get ample coverage, and are studied in detailed, and learned from. Consensus has always been that. Thus the reason we have so many of them. Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners Dream Focus 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, all crashes do not get ample coverage. All airliner crashes get coverage...because they crash and kill passengers. This aircraft crashed on a test flight - four company employees, performing the test, were killed, and there is precisely zero continuing coverage. . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I like how, despite the explanation of why this doesn't really serve as a good stand alone article, we still get the usual "a source exists so this MUST be kept" without putting any more thought into it. Lacks the potential to become a worthwhile standalone article, and, like other articles in the field that could technically be considered "notable" but would make for a poor article, should (and I believe already has?) be covered in another article. .--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus' argument. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Dream Focus' argument is that it puts the broad statement, that all crashes get substantial coverage, over the actual truth, which is that this one didn't. Are we really going to ignore the actual case we're dealing with in preference to a generalization?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion before about which crashes to include, and Wikipedia:AIRCRASH was made as a guideline. Still not officially promote to guideline status, but whatever. People died in the crash. It surely got coverage, this the type of things people report. Not all newspapers and magazines have their entire history searchable through Google. They learned something from it, and thus it had lasting effect. Dream Focus 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point and completely misreading WP:AIRCRASH. This article meets WP:AIRCRASH...for inclusion in the Boeing 247 article only, on the basis of 1. fatalities, 2. hull loss. It does not make any claim that anything was learned from it. At all. It was a pilot error accident. And, for stand-alone articles, WP:AIRCRASH states: "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." A 1935 pilot-error crash on a training flight would not have produced much, if anything, beyond an article in the local newspaper - it was not the "kind of thing people report", aircraft were rather more likely to crash back then, and did so, regulary. There were no known changes in procedures and regulations, and regardless of that, there is precisely zero evidence that this accident meets the WP:GNG or even comes close to it. "It surely got coverage" - while it is true that sources only need to exist for an article to be notable, there is no evidnce that sources exist. "It was a crash therefore there must be sources" is not the same thing as "there are sources". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HallPass Media

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

no real notability shown for this company. sourced by own page and passing mentions. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks that the game network Hallpass Media is a different company. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-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! 15:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another publicity business advertising on Wikipedia: specializes in sports marketing and consulting for elite athletes, brands, events, and intellectual properties. Article is basically a directory entry with a client list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 14 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. Courcelles 21:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hewitt (artist/sculptor)

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

Non-notable. Would have prodded it ... but for a lone ref to his own website. While it is not a determining factor in and of itself, perhaps the article creator's judgment was influenced by the fact that he bears the same name as the subject of the article.Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/delete You can find some coverage in the local newspapers in the Northampton area, see the section news archives at the artist's website. The articles mention briefly his student achievements. I don't think it is enough to meet our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a long way WP:TOOSOON. A level results etc do not count as notable achievements, so the article contains no assertions of notability and would meet WP:CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ally D Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 15 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 by GraemeL (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Afshar) — Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Afshar

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

Article about an investor. Citations seem to be profiles on Mr. Afshar, but fail to demonstrate notability. I am not comfortable committing this to A7, as I see the links as such an assertion - even if erroneously so. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third party sources suggesting notability. Just another unremarkable PE investor. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just read through the first AfD discussion - how the heck did that survive a raft of strong delete comments, and only one keep? I appreciate it is not a vote, but still... --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was evidently recreated recently. Given this, it would possibly be eligible for speedy G4, but it's also been five years since that AFD discussion. I'll G4 it and see what happens, in any event. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:58, 14 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 Playbill. What, if any, to merge is left toeditoral judgment Courcelles 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playbill Vault

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

Brand new web site - this is just a little bit too soon to be notable, espectially since the site is in beta. I suspect this is being done to promote the website. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Playbill, the parent publication of this web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Playbill. Is only a few days old and has not attracted any reliable independent sources. Judging by the number of backlinks by the same creator from the same cerator on other Wikipedia pages, I also suspect some kind of publicity agenda. The site may turn out to become as notable as IMDB in the future, but let's wait until it it does. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 15 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. Courcelles 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torwash

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

This article seems like it's vaguely trying to advertise a fuel conversion process - or at least, announcing an invention. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional material. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no non-Keep votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand State Highway 21

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

Short stretch (6.7 kilometre) of non-notable road. Unreferenced since 2008. Searching for references finds a great number of people and business addresses. Issues with a bridge which got official [9], [10] and [11], local [12] and press [13] coverage. If notability rests on the bridge, then the article needs to be renamed Narrows Bridge (New Zealand) and restructured accordingly, it is already mentioned at Hamilton, New Zealand. I've looked for for precedents, in particular at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents, and this nomination seems roughly in line with precedent (but the US roads use lots of terms I don't really understand and precedent isn't necessarily consistent). My guess is that this road is only a state highway to aid navigation to Hamilton International Airport (which only has a single international airline with a single international destination). Redirecting to Hamilton International Airport (or somewhere else) may be the best solution. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 07:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect to Narrows Bridge (New Zealand), but do not delete. I don't see any benefits for Wikipedia in deleting verifiable geographical information. Thanks Stuartyeates for the sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as geographical information. Very difficult for this to be contentious, although if you can show it is a hoax, I'm all ears. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Wikipedia:Notability (geography) do you see this as meeting? I don't see it as meeting any. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't pass WP:Notability (geography), it passes WP:Notability (highways), which is the appropriate guideline that says that main level, state maintained, numbered highways are automatically notable. There isn't a section on New Zealand, but using Australia's section as a guide (or any other) makes it pretty clear. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to it passes WP:Notability (highways): all I can do is quote the lede for that article which says In a nutshell, highways that are numbered and signed as part of a single, national highway network are generally notable and should have their own articles. It is, however, important to assert each highway's individual notability (historical significance, press coverage, economic importance, etc.) when writing articles. I'm completely failing to find sources for this highway (an nobody else appears to have found any), so the highway's individual notability is failing. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to using Australia's section as a guide: all I can say is that it's about as far from Australia to New Zealand as from England to Belarus. while the cultures are similar, the geography is completely different and thus the roads are very different; the federal structure of Australia also means that 'national' has quite different implications. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Further down it states an exception to proofing notability as "...county highway systems that have a state-wide numbering, which are more similar to state or provincial highway systems". In other words, major highways are pretty much considered de facto without any additional proof and this exceeds the standard exception defined in the main header. It would be nice to have some verification of existence, but most highways don't, and WP:V doesn't require that verification exists, only that it is possible. It IS important to provide more information for the benefit of Wikipedia, but it isn't *required* in order to be included. It is a stub. We have lots of them. In short, the problems with the article are matters of editing, not a matter of criteria. State Highways, de facto, are automatically notable, per guidelines and common outcomes, as are smaller highways systems. I'm at a loss, as this clearly passes the criteria established. Everything else is an issue for the talk page, not in AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the government has gone to the trouble to maintain and designate this roadway as a state highway, a status that sets it apart from many other roads. Merging this back to the most appropriate target, the list of other highways in the system would cause size issues, meaning splitting it into its own article is appropriate on WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE grounds. Imzadi 1979 → 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep -- Though short this is one of about 100 highways maintained by the state (presumably as opposed to local authorities). This means that the state has identified it as notable. In UK we have articles on many A-class roads - classified county roads. I do not see this as sigfnificnatly different. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to compare your logic to the examples given at Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES, although it is easy to confuse the two, and take an improper tone in an otherwise civil discussion. Again, WP:Notability (highways) is the applicable guidelines regarding notability here. I'm eager to hear how it fails to pass the criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination as much as I completely fail to see how this meets WP:Notability (highways), it looks like I'm the only one and I take Dennis Brown civil discussion point. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:22, 16 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 Movement of National Responsibility. –MuZemike 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scilipotism

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

Article is self-admittedly about a neologism. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to Movement of National Responsibility. (see the discussion below). He he, this political practice is well known also in my country, we call it "changing of coats" (převlékání kabátů). It is usually very despicable political fiddle, but not always. In any case, the term Scilipotism is certainly a neologism, its use is not confirmed by any reliable sources and it should be deleted. The circumstances regarding this issue should be developed in an encyclopedic way in the article Movement of National Responsibility. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crossing the floor Delete. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not justified by a single reliable source, Cusop Dingle. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Movement of National Responsibility. ~~Other than WP and its mirrors, I found zero ghits for Scilipotism or Scilipotist. Fails WP:N.~~ see related discussion further down --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 197.251.164.7 has made me think again. Although the term itself may have no currency, the actions described in this article surely do, have tons of available sources (have added a couple), and ought to be captured in WP. Happy to consider better merge targets. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a single reliable source confirming use of this term. Should Wikipedia make up its validity? Should we associate a name of a living person with the term which "describes such a sudden transformation of political ideas and, particularly, of Parliament position ... for uncertain personal reasons but, certainly, for the advantage of the new political side." Without good sources, it would be totally inappropriate. I think that this page almost constitutes WP:ATTACK. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on "scilipotism" returns 9 hits, 8 of them this article and mirrors. However, a search on "scilipotismo" finds 1,880 hits, including: La Repubblica [14], l'Unità [15] [16], Il Foglio [17], "L'era dello scilipotismo"[18], "Scilipotismo" [19], Limes [20], and "La politica italiana vede la nascita dello 'scilipotismo'" [21]. So, I don't think it constitutes an attack page, although I also don't think that WP should be leading the charge to convert the Italian term into an English one, a la fascismo to fascism. At this point, I'm not sure what the best solution is: Rename article to "Scilipotismo"? Embed the content into the Crossing the floor, Party switching, or other similar articles? Port Domenico Sciliporti's article from Italian WP to here (which has a section on this issue)? Or just delete the topic, since it seems to be mainly of interest within a non-English speaking country? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Hobbes Goodyear. I forgot to check out the Italian version, sorry. Deletion is not the best option, under those circumstances. We don't have an article for Domenico Scilipoti, so what about merging the content to the article Movement of National Responsibility? The context is in my opinion most relevant in this article. I'm still not sure if a stand alone article is sustainable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Movement of National Responsibility does seem like the best spot for it, and that article could use fleshing out, anyway. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is a neologism, such a bad habit must be recorded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.251.164.7 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Movement of National Responsibility. I agree with Hobbes Goodyear. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burhan Javaid

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

While he exists, I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability under wp standards re this columnist. Others are of course welcome to try. Tagged for notability for over two years, and for being an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable blogger. Being a Cambridge blue is great, but wholly irrelevant. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a deblogged search gave just 8 results, none of them notable. He'll have to do more than blog and look like a young Jeremy Clarkson... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an overall failure of the GNG with no availability of reliable sources to prove otherwise. [22] Till I Go Home (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 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. Courcelles 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Memorial

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

This monument does not appear to be notable.

I have found a host of similar articles, all apparently based on data from the Smithsonian Institution. The writer has put a great deal of work into these articles; however, this shows that the author of an article should carefully check for notability before beginning to write in earnest. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the outcome of this discussion, a mass nomination may be in order: see Frederick Keep Monument and McKee Grave, for example. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about creating a List of monuments located at Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington, D.C.? The article is very nice and the information is verifiable, but I don't think we should maintain stand alone articles for all the memorial art works located at that site. The Smithsonian Institute lists 54 (!) monuments [23] located at Rock Creek Cemetery. It should be merged all in one article/list, but not deleted. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author of this and hundreds of public art articles, we've been through this before and all of the articles have been kept. Being covered by the Smithsonian Institution provides instant notability, and I have written List of public art in Washington, D.C., which was even nominated for deletion, at one point. The Smithsonian works listed from the Save Outdoor Sculpture! survey for Rock Creek Cemetery are listed here: List of public art in Washington, D.C., Ward 4. And if you have desire to delete these other artworks, then you'll have hundreds of articles to look at around the world. I don't expect every Wikipedian to be versed in art and fine art history, but, for those of us in the field, these works are notable. To nominate these artworks for deletion, which are so important to the cultural heritage of American art history that they were documented in great detail by the Smithsonian, is painful to see, but understandable if perhaps one isn't aware of art history or the work we have done at WP:Public art. The Frederick Keep Monument, for example, was designed and created by James Earle Fraser, one of the most important sculptors in early 20th-century American history. Besides, if you decide to delete these, you'll have to delete thousands of other memorials, monuments, graves, and statues that have been covered around the world. All of these can be expanded, primarily with offline resources (i.e. The Outdoor Sculpture of Washington, D.C.: A Comprehensive Historical Guide by James Goode, which is available, all 500 pages of it, and includes these works, at any DMV area library, but I haven't had time to check it out again). I apologize for being so frustrated, I just have been dealing with this every few months, for two years. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this post comes off angry, it's just, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse every so often about public art, nothing personal. This sculpture, being featured in the Save Outdoor Sculpture! survey, was selected, by the public (thousands of volunteers), as a notable work of art in Washington, D.C., and then documented by the Smithsonian. For me, my colleagues, and art historians who study public art, that makes this piece notable. I'll shut up now :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I looked through the WP:Public art project pages, but didn't see anything substantial about notability. While your assertion that "being covered by the Smithsonian Institution provides instant notability" seems plausible (and because I happen to know you have a great deal of expertise in the area), I'm inclined to agree that ultimately the article should be kept; but this would be a much easier discussion if there were clear notability guidelines written up somewhere (say, along the lines of WP:ATHLETE that we could refer to. Ideally, the first sentence or two should also convey some of that information as well, so the reader can quickly get a clear idea of why the artwork is notable as well. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help you work up a basic project page about notability and public art. -Pete (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We won't have time to develop these guidelines quick enough (nor do I have time this week) in order to keep this article. But yes, based on recent conversations with folks within the community, including Rick Prelinger, we desperately need to develop fine art notability guidelines for 2-D, 3-D and public artworks. SarahStierch (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest bringing this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts as this is an issue that comes up continuously. We have notability guidelines for artists but not works of art. The closest visual medium that has a guideline is films. A task force should be created to get this going as this is a recurring problem, both for notable works that are nominated for deletion but also for works that simply are not notable and criteria for deletion is vague at best (this is often the case for works for young living artists). freshacconci talktalk 01:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it too. The articles don't seem particularly notable to me (just a monument in a graveyard, with only one source discussing them in any sort of depth - I did a Google search which didn't turn up anything useful - of course, that isn't counting offline sources). But if an expert on the subject asserts that they are notable, then I suppose I must defer to their judgment.

The only remaining issue is that there isn't really much to say about these monuments. I tend to agree with Vejvančický above, who suggests merging these articles into lists, since I can't see these individual articles growing very much. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Jno. Williams, Inc. was a major American art foundry for a long time. If there is no article about them there should be. This is an example of their work - high quality work - and needs to be retained. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Not only did Smithsonian-trained volunteers select this work for inclusion in the Save Outdoor Sculpture survey of the early 1990s, but the institution has preserved information about the work for decades in its Inventory of American Sculpture and SIRIS database. James Goode's book, mentioned by SarahStierch above, includes more than 10 pages of information about sculpture in the Rock Creek Cemetery. Many users of the encyclopedia are reading the article, so I hope it can stay. Jgmikulay (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jgmikulay - I don't think there should be any problem putting together notability guidelines for various types of art, but that should be done first. Otherwise it just looks like "I don't like it." Smallbones (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge. Not much to say, but passes notability. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 15 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 Withdrawn by nominator. I will work to cleanup article per WP:SAL. Novaseminary (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian apologetic works

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

This seems to fail WP:SAL and WP:NOTDIR, and per the nom in the first AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Christian apologetics#Further reading. Christian apologetics is a large field. There is already a large list in the main article. I would guess this has been forked off to keep its size within limits. However this is a list of books, not a list of external links. If kept, it might be renamed Bibliography of Christian apologetics. I note that the "Scientific apologetics" section has a disputed tag. It may well be that the conclusions of the books aare disputed by many people, but it can hardly be disputed that the books exist and are on the subject. However, "Evolution apologetics" might be a better title. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging this with Christian apologetics has one obvious problem: this is a large list, and that is a large article. There's easily enough material for two articles here, and I'd rather see Christian apologetics#Further reading merged and pointed here if there is any non-duplication. This is a list of books by notable authors; most of the books themselves are notable enough to support articles even if those articles are yet to be written. And if there are non-notable entries, that's a matter of editing that does not call for deletion. Seems a reasonable split and I'm unclear as to how this is supposed to violate the list formatting manual of style, or why that's a deletion matter. The topic is specific enough to not be a directory even if articles like these are as useful to editors as to readers. If people want to delete it, save it at WP:Christianity first. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support redirecting this to the further reading section (though that section needs major work) as an alternative to deletion. The there there also highlight how this list is a CFORK as it is now. I would also be fine repurposing this as a list of WP articles of apologetic works. That would be consistent with this same title, but not the current article. Novaseminary (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has already been explained that WP:SAL is a style guide, not a reason for deletion, and I don't see how any of the criteria of WP:NOTDIR remotely apply to this article. Maybe the nominator could let us know which criterion he or she had in mind? And, if this is a content fork, it is a perfectly valid summary style fork: if anything Christian apologetics#Further reading should be culled rather than this article be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 15 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. Courcelles 21:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Udit Narayan

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

I respect mr. Udit Narayan but a list of songs performed by a playback singer is not-notable at all. He did not sing them nor record them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just an indiscriminate list of 1200 songs, without any independent source that verifies he actually ever sung any of them. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Delete~~ because it is unreferenced and unlinked. However the point is he did sing and record these songs - for somebody else to mime to in a Bollywood film. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed from delete. I find bare lists, as this is, not exactly encyclopedic. If somebody was to add years, composers and related films then I would have voted keep from the start and this would actually be a valuable list. Maybe somebody familiar with the subject would like to consider this? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to keep. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0621257/ He has sung thousands of song in 26 different languages. He also awarded the Padma Shri by the Government of India. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he really sing or only playback? Any sources of him singing a specific song? Any recordings of him singingen a song? Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to misunderstand what a playback singer is. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Err, oops, argh Yes, I looked at playback singing with my Dutch glasses on. In The Netherlands, you are playbacking when you do the lip-sync, not the singing. The article made clear that that is at least inaccurate naming. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 04:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the equivalent of a discography for a playback singer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep When I nominated the article I looked at it from a totally wrong view point. Due to growing knowledge I have to admit now that the article is notable (but could have some improvement and sourcing). Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder of opportunity

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

WP is not a dictionary for Neologisms. Mattg82 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this phrase was something that was used throughout an election, then I can see some notability in that. But we'd need sources to document it. Compare other political catch phrases such as Thousand points of light. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - The article is unsourced at the moment, but references abound (a bunch of them at Google Archives). It was a central theme of Labor's 2004 election strategy and has passed into Australian political terminology, with many of the refs from recent years. There are also a multitude of references in which American presidents use the phrase, from Obama to Reagan to Wilson (more Google archives). The refs are almost invariably political in nature - it is clearly a political catchphrase, but not perhaps exclusive to the Australian Labor Party.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Conditional) Keep - Contingent upon expansion of the article with incorporation of sources cited by Yeti Hunter.--JayJasper (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although having said that, I didn't spot any references that talk about the term, just ones that use it. It's original synthesis to add our interpretation of what exactly the phrase means or its political implications in the absence of a RS making such interpretation.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:G12. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane McMenamy

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable amateur golfer. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Also no reliable sources indicated. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement--this article is a straight cut-&-paste job from the one and only reference that it lists. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation, per Hobbes, and I have tagged the article accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to keep, delete, or merge. Merging can continue to be discussed outside of AfD. –MuZemike 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scheme 48

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

I found zero significant coverage. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched and didn't find any reliable sources that would be helpful, and the article itself doesn't make it clear how this software is notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article itself lacks independent sources to support notability, that's a content issue if the sources are available but just haven't yet been cited. It looks to me like the sources are available. In only a few minutes poking around through the various Google searches, I found a class at UCSD that's using it and two papers, one about an algorithm built on this software and the other making comparisons to Scheme 48. Maybe I'm mistaking some of this as independent and secondary when it's not (and if so, please correct me!) but if it was this easy to find this much, I'm inclined to guess there's got to be more. Msnicki (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic but the article itself needs more secondary sources. A Google search turns up references to universities that use Scheme 48 in coursework or as a research tool.

Those are a few examples. There are more than 20 papers at ReadScheme.org referring to Scheme 48 so perhaps some can be incorporated. ReadScheme.or search results here. A search on Google Scholar returns a lot of references to Scheme 48 also. Google Scholar results here. It may also be notable that Scheme 48 is the foundation for Scsh. --Ds13 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the Delete above is changed, I will withdraw the nomination. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other sub-stub and stub members of Category:Scheme implementations to a single article. Mentions are not enough, we need extended coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Salazar

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

Notability for this title is in question. Google results don't come up with a clearcut match. –BuickCentury Driver 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable novel. Google search shows no results. No article for the author. No references, no claim of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, no content in the article, author lacks an article, and no references to reliable sources. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unpublished books. Harland1 (^t/_c) 03:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kennedy (actor)

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

Unreferenced BLP. Given his name, it's difficult to find references to him; I've been able to find fan pages, but no reliable sourcing. There's also been ongoing contention between the page creator and an editor who says he's the subject of the page over what the page should contain—not that that should matter to an AFD, but it appears that there's certain material the subject doesn't want on "his" page. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Robin Hood (2006 TV series) --Thebirdlover (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:24, 14 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. User:Tinton5 withdrew the nomination for deletion. All !votes are clearly to keep the article. Disclosure: I have made two edits to the article, but I do not have a vested interest in it. (Non-administrative closure). Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De Echoput

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

Non-notable, run of the mill restaurant, not widely known. Most sources are in Dutch. Tinton5 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A restaurant holding a Michelin star run of the mill, I don't think so. About the Dutch sources: are you familiar with WP:NONENG and WP:GNG (states: Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English.) and WP:ORG (States in the footnotes: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.)? Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Michelin star is sufficient notability without more. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my understanding of past consensus, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for my short review of history of Michelin-starred restaurant AfDs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that a restaurant was awarded one or two Michelin stars for several decades creates a very strong presumption of notability. "Run of the mill" applies to local hot dog stands or pizza joints, not world class restaurants. In my opinion, an AfD nominator, in a case such as this, should be expected to explain in great detail the unique circumstances that led to a restaurant receiving such a prestigious award for so many years yet otherwise failing to to achieve notability. Such an explanation should include an understanding of the significance of the Michelin stars. Warning - this will be a very difficult challenge. As to the reliance on reliable Dutch language sources, please be aware that they are just as acceptable as English language sources. Thanks also to Milowent for the history lesson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Michelin ratings. The fact that the sources are in dutch is irrelevant. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Okay so how do we go about withdrawing the nomination? Tinton5 (talk) 23:36, 14 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nolet Het Reymerswale

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

Non-notable restaurant for English Wikipedia. Most sources are in dutch. Tinton5 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no specific notability page for restaurants; however, this article is well sourced and it appears like it meets WP:GNG through coverage in sources. Remember that existence of sources are required; however, access to sources is not required so the fact that most sources are in Dutch is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG. Furthermore, this restaurant was awarded a star by the Michelin Guide. This is not bestowed upon many restaurants and could be considered an honor (also conferring notability). Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A restaurant holding a Michelin star run of the mill, I don't think so. About the Dutch sources: are you familiar with WP:NONENG and WP:GNG (states: Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English.) and WP:ORG (States in the footnotes: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.)? Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not exactly sure what the criteria are for eating establishments, but a Michelin star restaurant I would have thought must be sufficiently notable? --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not notable for "English" wikipedia? Fuck that, English is a worthy language for everything that's notable, if we can get a passable article written. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for the Michelin discussion and history of those AfDs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that a restaurant was awarded a Michelin star for 25 years or more creates a very strong presumption of notability. In my opinion, an AfD nominator, in a case such as this, should be expected to explain in great detail the unique circumstances that led to a restaurant receiving such a prestigious award for so many years yet otherwise failing to to achieve notability. Such an explanation should include an understanding of the significance of a Michelin star. Warning - this will be a very difficult challenge. As to the reliance on reliable Dutch language sources, please be aware that they are just as acceptable as English language sources. Thanks also to Milowent for the history lesson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is Google Translate. [24], [25], [26] (all about the closure), [27] (news article), [28] (is in a travel guide, but it is still an actual review), and there is likely more. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination I was unaware of the guidelines provided. Now I will be more careful when nominating for the future. I am now in the process of withdrawing this and end this hassle. Thank you all. Tinton5 (talk) 23:38, 14 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 per WP:G7. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered Feathers

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

Band is not notable. They are signed to a label that doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. The author also stated that he created the article to "expand their already large Pittsburgh fan base as well as generate awareness elsewhere" at the band's request here. There is no evidence that they meet any of the requirements in WP:BAND Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 01:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was in the process of filing an AfD on this group as well. A Google search on "Numbered Feathers" "Loose Ends" (their only recording) shows only 14 results, none significant independent coverage. A search on just their name shows similar results. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The band is notable within the Pittsburgh area. The fact that their label has no Wikipedia page is irrelevant as the label is a small-time label whilst the band has begun to reach big publicity within the city. The page was written under the guidance of the band as well as the management at the Rex Theater, a popular theater in Pittsburgh that has shown interest in Numbered Feathers. Due to the guidance of the aforementioned individuals, the page certainly mets the goal to "expand their already large Pittsburgh fan base as well as generate awareness elsewhere". And the page does meet the criteria cited by WP: BAND which is met in "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." The band is incredibly prominent in the Pittsburgh indie rock scene and thus meet this criteria. The inclusion will not do harm to the already vast array of information on Wikipedia, it will simply help add to the information already provided. And as for the claim that a search of the band yields minimal results, that is do to a narrow search. A search of "Numbered Feathers" yields 1,430,000 results and several sites with coverage of the band. I believe the page is helpful inclusion into the indie rock pages of Wikipedia and I am willing to make edits in order to ensure it stays on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOMER2500 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — TOMER2500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You must have searched for Numbered feathers without quotation marks which yields results like this one which has nothing to do with the band. A search for "numbered feathers" only yields 535 results. Most of them are for facebook or myspace. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well just because most of the results yield Facebook or myspace results does not harm the credibility of the band. Especially because two of the more prominent results for the band are their ReverbNation page and a YouTube documentary on the band (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftXbQgbeMAo). Most of the critical reception, admittedly, has not been online but rather through written publications in the city of Pittsburgh. Written publications are just as valid as online resources. And I have added references to showcase their concert series at a local theater as well as their album announcement and things of that nature. I still believe this band is popular enough to be deserving of their page. I do not see why this page is considered unacceptable as it does nothing beyond expand the wealth of information regarding music on Wikipedia. I believe this page deserves its place on Wikipedia. And as I stated before, I am willing to make edits in order to ensure the page its place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOMER2500 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was written under the guidance of the band as well as the management at the Rex Theater WP:COI

The inclusion will not do harm to the already vast array of information on Wikipedia WP:NOHARM

You are not exactly helping your case here. And no, Facebook and Myspace does not hurt their credibility but it doesn't add to it. We do not use Facebook, Myspace or Youtube as proof of notability because they are WP:SPS. As for written publications, you need proof for that (e.g. Local newspapers, magazines, etc). Please provide it. Zlqchn (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for you to get rude with me (i.e. You are not exactly helping your case here). I am simply trying to state my reasoning for why I believe this page should remain. And while I understand Facebook and Myspace are not exemplary citations, the group's ReverbNation page is certainly a good source. It is a hub in which the band may post music, book shows, and interact with fans. And as for the written publications, I shall post those citations immediately. --TOMER2500 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ReverbNation isn't much more reliable than Facebook or MySpace to establish notability. You've said it yourself, the band may post music there. To establish notability, the kind of references you must provide are third-party reliable sources, that is, the kind of references that have an established reputation for fact-checking ("reliable") and are not connected with the band in any way ("third-party"). In short, you must provide evidence of coverage in sources where the band would have to involve their attorney in the process if they want anything changed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find the kind of sources I've talked about in the above comment. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have acknowledged that Facebook and MySpace were not excellent sources. ReverbNation is mediocre as a source. However, the recent inclusion of two Pittsburgh literary publications shall boost the credibility of the page I believe. This page is informative, it is not ridden with errors or slander, and it follows the guidelines set by Wikipedia for the inclusion of an article. For these reasons, I believe the article has a place on Wikipedia. And as stated before, I am open to suggestions for edits in order to keep the page on this website and I am also adding more local sources to the page. --TOMER2500 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is informative, it is well written, it is unbiased, it is devoid or slander, contains newly updated credible sources, and follows the guidelines set by Wikipedia. --TOMER2500 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)— TOMER2500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete fails WP:BAND - no proof that it "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" which is the claimed rationale. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This band does not appear to have achieved sufficient notability pursuant to WP:MUSIC yet. Most of the sources provided are self-published (such as Facebook and YouTube) or irrelevant (such as a link to the Rex Theatre web site where the band is not mentioned anywhere I can see). The ReverbNation site is not an independent source to the extent that it is a site which allows bands to promote themselves, and on the other hand it tends to suggest less-than-major notability, by showing that the band is ranked number 100 among alternative bands in Pittsburgh. Of the two print sources cited, one, Pittsburgh City Paper, gives no indication on its web site that it has reviewed this band's EP last month, and the other, The Devil's Advocate, appears to be a high school newspaper from the high school which this band's members attended. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. At the very least, there is none for deletion. As far as merging is concerned, that can continue to be discussed on the appropriate article talk pages. –MuZemike 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like button

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

This nomination can and will most likely be a shit storm easily because of it's usage by THAT site alone. The question remains however, if the lowly like button is notable enough on it's own. I believe while it should be mentioned on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be a independent article. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 01:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Facebook. Non-notable...um, thing per WP:NWEB. The only notability of the subject results from inherited notability from the main subject, Facebook. HurricaneFan 25 02:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified of this discussion because I created the page (as a redirect to Facebook features#Like). I think it was a reasonable decision then and I think it's still a reasonable decision now. I don't think a separate article is needed when you can incorporate this content so neatly into a larger, more substantial piece. For those of you simply skimming this bullet for a vote, redirect to Facebook features#Like. There you go. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like —Emufarmers^(T/C) 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More can be said on this company's button then any other share icon. — Dispenser 02:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like buttons are not ubiquitous to Facebook - most message boards have a similar function, as does (I think) Tripadvisor and other well know sites. Whilst I accept a component of a greater part can be notable (see e.g. clutch), a sub-type of that component is just stretching it too far for me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whichever article most broadly addresses the phenomenon of conveying impressions about something on the Internet by clicking a handy button, whether it be a "like", "upvote", "+1", and so forth. If no such article exists, it needs to be written. The phenomenon as a whole is notable; this particular instance of it is not notable independent of the phenomenon. bd2412 T 03:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The "like" button has become so commonplace in American culture that even The New York Times references it as its own identity, without needing to acknowledge the connection to Facebook or any other specific social medium. (Article here.) — Michael J 05:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Facebook. I cannot see how this particular feature of Facebook would be notable enough to merit its own article. JIP | Talk 06:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hear what has been said above, especially the former decision to go with a redirect, which was surely good at the time. But by today the 'Like button' has become a standard feature of websites of all kinds, i.e. it has grown out of its original home and has become Notable in its own right. (Doesn't mean I like it though! - but that is NOT an argument) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Annoying the concept may be, but there are a number of online news articles specifically about the 'like' button. As others have pointed out already, it is a concept that is spreading rapidly to other websites. Similar to the Smiley it is a growing part of our culture. Sionk (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above to Facebook. Even if other internet entities use this concept, this specific name is representative of Facebook. If it was generic enough to include all instances of "like button"-like buttons it would still have to pass WP:WEB and would require independent coverage (that is, coverage of the concept itself rather than coverage in the context of the aforementioned book of faces). §everal⇒|Times 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect to) Facebook features#Like.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per Dispenser and ample coverage in reliable, secondary sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Those were the best I found in five minutes of searching; there are lots more. Whether you Like it or not, Facebook's Like button is and will remain an important development in the history of the web. – Pnm (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are certainly reliable sources, yes, but they all discuss the like button in the context of how Facebook uses it. Is the concept of the like button ever discussed independently of Facebook? §everal⇒|Times 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not generically, I don't think. I refocused the article to be about Facebook's feature. Certainly when enough other sources discuss these in a group it could be moved to something like Facebook Like button and a more general article created in its place. – Pnm (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if the article is about upvoting in general, per bd2412's comment above Social news, share icon, and wikt:upvote are candidates. If the article is specifically about Facebook's upvoting feature, then it should be Merged into Facebook Woz2 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted under CSD G4 by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS 11

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted once before, and should not have been created. It clearly violates WP:Crystal, and appears to have been sourced from here. Actually, the fact that there are poorly formatted bullets in the article suggests it was probably directly copied from there. This is hardly a trustworthy source (it also notes that "It's been common knowledge for a while now that the upcoming 10.5 "Leopard" release will be the last version of OS X"). I think it is very clear cut (as can be seen in the old debate) that no article should exist under this title until Apple actually releases some information about what may be called OS 11. Millermk90 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#G4 Baseball Watcher 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Baseball watcher. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copsewood College

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

Article without references or sources. Looks like an advertisement. Even with all the non-reliable sources and Wikipedia-clones it scores only 2350 internet hits (on Pallaskenry "Copsewood College") . Hence, it fails WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pallaskenry It is a difficult issue discussing the deletion of an article on a high school. I am going to stick to Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable an essay I wrote in response to some comments from Jimbo Wales. This could be notable if a variety of good sources was found and a well rounded article was written; however, as it stands that is not the case. If an editor is willing to step up to improve this article, it could be userfied with a redirect pointing to Palleskenry until the article is finished. If not, it should be replaced with a redirect and left. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school, thus notable per se under the consensus that has emerged here over years. Jimmy Wales has opined that he doesn't like the rule of thumb that works so well here ("Primary schools, redirect; Secondary schools, keep.") He apparently underestimates that vast amount of time that will be wasted moving to a new "Source Them All Out" standard. There are probably hundreds of thousands of schools around the world — the greenlight would be given both to every elementary school on the planet to write pages and source them to local newspapers on the one hand, and to deletionists with automated tools to go on a nominating rampage on the other ("one minute to nominate, one hour to successfully defend..."). That is, quite frankly, an undesirable thing. Here come the test cases. Let's keep an excellent system which works in practice in place — keep the secondary schools (there are sources out there in the long grass, unquestionably). Ditch the primary schools. A fair compromise between those who seek and expansive and those who seek a focused encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article on the school gives unsourced information on the principal, some random classes offered, the ___location of the school, and the size, in addition, it is unorganized. Are you telling me that the article, as it stands, meets notability requirements and is a benefit to the encyclopedia? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the discussion here, I would not say that there is consensus about declaring secondary school notable by default. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you yourself opened the can of worms, I wouldn't expect you to say anything else. Let's see what others have to say, shall we? Admittedly, this is an extremely terrible article. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: Totally irrelevant and inadmissible argument for an AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious is this in response to me or Night of the Big Wind? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly obviously directed at Night of the Big Wind's statement ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jimmy Wales' talk page: I have clashed many times about completely non-notable primary and secondary schools that are supposed to be notable according to the rules of this project. What is the rationale about the policy to declare all secondary schools notable? Night of the Big Wind talk 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Worm can opened... Let's put the lid on that thing, I don't like worms. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only rationale that WikiProject Schools gives is in fact "we are too lazy to start thinking". Sorry, I don't accept that argument. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I endorse Carrite's analysis of the situation. The presumed notability of secondary schools and the presumed non-notability of the vast majority (though not 100%) of primary schools has served us well. Instead of spending enormous amounts of time on school AfD debates, we ought to routinely delete articles about primary schools without strong and unique notability claims, and work on expansion based on reliable sources of articles about secondary schools worldwide. I respect Jimbo Wales greatly, but we make these decisions based on consensus rather than what Jimbo says on a given day, and what Carrite and I have described here is the operative consensus that has worked well for Wikipedia for very a long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You think a self-invented "rule" (by WikiProject Schools) is more important then WP:GNG? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments constructive and on topic. We are not discussing 'self-invented rules' here, and FWIW, the rule was not invented by WP:WPSCH. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the same rationale as Carrite and Cullen328. I understand the dissatisfaction with this article, and secondary schools are problematic for all sorts of reasons. But what notability criteria would be used? WP:ORG has very unsatisfactory application in practice - some small local businesses pass because by luck or skill they have got a press release published in the editorial pages of the press, whilst some multi-nationals and country wide companies with thousands of employees and turnover in the hundreds of millions, or more, struggle to pass AfD. Apply the same standards to schools and the effect would be even more serendipitous. As for Corpsewood College, there will clearly be a sufficient history and substance to the school to make a satisfactory school article at some point. That is not saying, of course, that articles in this state should be encouraged; as pointed out it would fit as things stand in the Pallaskenry article which itself also needs work, but that discussion is not for here. --AJHingston (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The school exists and is a high school. The article has survived for several years and there is no need to delete it now just because it contains little information. Sources can be found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem is that WP:ITEXISTS is not in itself a sufficient reason to keep the article and we can't really justify not deleting an article just because it's managed to survive thus far without being deleted. Also, we need sources in the here and now to prove that this school is in itself notable. It's had 3 years to prove notability and so far there's nothing that shows it's passing notability guidelines and no reliable sources at all, not even a local article about the school's history. It might be better to redirect this to Pallaskenry#Education and get someone to userfy this article until reliable sources proving notability can be found. It is unfortunate that we don't have a separate policy from WP:GNG that's specifically for schools, but it should be noted that all notability guidelines share one common theme: they must have reliable sources, which this article does not. If someone could find even one source it'd be a different story, but there aren't any and nobody has managed to find any. I'm just worried that what might end up happening is that the article is kept on the promise that someone will find sources, then the article gets forgotten and remains largely unimproved until the next time someone lists it for AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment I like the work that I have begun to see on the article. I still maintain my argument that if one of the editors in favor of keeping this article is willing to work on it in a subpage it would be okay. While it is in a subpage a redirect should point to Pallaskenry. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't believe that schools are inherently notable but in practice reliable sources can usually be found for any secondary school in an English-speaking country to improve the article to meet the notability requirements. In this particular case it's the building which seems to be of more importance than the school. It is a historic building which is listed on the Irish landed estates database. http://www.landedestates.ie/LandedEstates/jsp/property-show.jsp?id=2262. The alumni also contribute to the notability of a school. In this case the writer Darren Shan attended the school. http://www.darrenshan.com/facts/index.html Not all of the sources for a building that is over 100 years old will necessary be easily accessible online. The school is, for example, referred to in a number of books on Google Books in its old name Copsewood Agricultural College. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Copsewood+College+Ireland&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 though most are only accessible as a limited preview. Dahliarose (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. The sources convinces me that there is more then an empty building. The article still needs some work, but this nomination can be speedy closed as keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Sally Little captures first LPGA win
^ Ladies' Masters changes name
^ The teenager & the porn star: will 18-year-old Sasha Grey become the adult film industry's next Jenna Jameson? Los Angeles Magazine
^ Sherri L. Shaulis (2008-02-08). "Web, Studio Winners Announced At XBiz Awards". AVN.com. Retrieved 2009-01-11.

[1] Sally Little captures first LPGA win

[2] Ladies' Masters changes name

[3] The teenager & the porn star: will 18-year-old Sasha Grey become the adult film industry's next Jenna Jameson? Los Angeles Magazine

[Winners-4] Sherri L. Shaulis (2008-02-08). "Web, Studio Winners Announced At XBiz Awards". AVN.com. Retrieved 2009-01-11.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]