Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 December	18 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BbLean

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

I found nothing that would make this software pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced; no reliable sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus ist that this is does not merit an article, per WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 08:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 MRT train disrputions

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

WP:NOT NEWs. Local events, no evidence for connection between them, no reason to think historic impact; all transit systems has disruptions from day to day, but keeping a log of them is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Utterly trivial. Even the title got disrputed (sic)! Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been to correct the misspelling in the original title. Should the AFD be moved too? According to The New Paper, the disruptions this week are the worst in the history of the MRT, their CEO considered resigning and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a public investigation. Since the disruptions are a current event, we cannot assess historical impact yet, but there certainly is potential for historical impact. Hence I suggest closing this nomination as premature and give the article several months to develop, after which the article can be renominated if the press coverage quickly stops and there turns out to be no real historical impact. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. If kept it should be renamed to something like Singapore MRT disruptions, 2011 as it is not immediately clear what the subject of the article is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, WP:NOTNEWS. Information is already mention as a section in the rail operator's main article, does it really require a dedicated article? Granted the news did make it to a handful of international publications, though whether this news has staying power remains to be seen. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)·[reply]
- Comment I added the recent disruptions under each line's main article as they are significant enough. I was actually wondering should there be a separate article just on the North-South disruption as it is the worst disruption, spanning 2 major disruptions over 3 days, 1 planned delay in services which were further delayed (18 Dec). Also Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong interrupted his own holiday just to address this issue. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improve I will be improving this article to provide more sources, more information and related info, plus u need to examine which trains and further summarisation. Got SGWiki and SGTrains Wikia, including some other websites. Timothy Mok Wikia is like Uncyclopaedia. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a compendium of news items -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pardon me on Wiki guidelines but that will make a lot of of wiki articles "a compendium of news items" then. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Some, and I emphasize "some" news items may be noteworthy because of their impact, but all I see here is a bunch of news reports about train delays. I see no evidence of enduring impact to the historical record that would justify its inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - I will actually like to reduce the scope of the article to just the incidents, and related, to the North South Line disruption on 15 December. Political impact analysis [1] on the incident. Public inquiry [2] on the incident by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who cut short his vacation to attend to the matter. As J.L.W.S. The Special One mentioned, this maybe a premature nomination and if no further evidence of historical impact surface, this article can be renominated. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Trains will break down from time to time, and this is not a single, massive incident (e.g, a major disaster – touch wood) that warrants separate treatment. The authorities claim all the breakdowns, though happening around the same time, are unrelated to each other. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this would certainly be unremarkable in much of the world, this was unprecedented for Singapore and was major news not just there, but around the world. A selection of reliable sources entirely about the breakdowns: see eg. Washington Post, Reuters, AFP, Boston.com (via AP), Shanghai Daily with the prime minister calling for public enquiries, much analysis of political impact etc. Jpatokal (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While significantly reported in the locap papers in those first few days, WP:NOTNEWS seems the order of the day as reporting seems to have trickled off. Would have put MERGE but I see that it is already mentioned in the SMRT article. Btw an IP is removing the AFD notice on the page which I have reverted. DanS76 (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will be retained - for the MRT disruptions as it was updated at all the day. September, October and December are cluttered with serious pressure. No need to ignore and talk all about. Can you think of other things, such as TalkingCock.com, in order to emphasize this. Let the Wikipedia pages be meant for seriousness and not to be screwed up. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Thieblemont

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

Mayor of small town, with no prior political office. Only notability was changing party registration to vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary election, which was widely repeated throughout the blogosphere as some sort of remarkable event. Other mentions are passing mentions in the local newspaper about routine duties as mayor. FWIW, I did a fair deal of editing on this article to fix all of the omissions and inaccuracies, but I still do not think the subject meets notability guidelines; he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, and IMO he doesn't meet the basic criteria either, as there is almost nothing beyond the party change, and even that is of questionable notability. Horologium (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Former mayor of a very small town. Coverage of his party switch is not adequate to show notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage to establish notability for this small town mayor. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm of the mind that mayors should have articles, but they have to have some sort of bone thrown in the direction of notability, as opposed to WP:DOGBITESMAN kind of things. If there was a Mayor of Camp Hill, Pensylvania article, or a Category:Mayors of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania category, I'd be willing to assume WP:N - but neither exists. Unfortunatly this fellow is nothing more than a ordinary mayor of a small town, and, barring anything extraordinary about him or his mayorhood, that isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brake Masters

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Found only one substantial source in a local paper. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. In fact it is close to speedy deletion (CSD A7), and is still somewhat promotional, though the most blatant promotion has been removed. Almost all of what I found about them was either promotional or else related to complaints about the company. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Between the ABC news article, the Arizona Daily Star, and the Sacramento Bee I think that independent/reliable sources indicate some level of notability for their business practices.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Seung Hun

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

No appropriate refs (1 ref provided identified as an attack site by my Browser). No notability or assertion of notability. No evidence of any hits. Fails WP:BAND Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- "remembered as one of the most important figures in South Korean pop music scene" and [A recent single was] "used by Korean Air to commemorate its 40th Anniversary" are both assertions of notability. Subject's peak was 1990s, and offline sources most likely exist; the article by The Dong-a Ilbo itself should indicate WP:N, with a circulation more than double the NYT. The ko.wiki article [[3]] shows charting history, television show, and thoroughly referenced. Dru of Id (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A google news search is full of references which clearly establish notability. As a singer, he's earning lots of money. He has major bestselling songs. He is known as the King of Ballads in Korea. He has 14 million record sales. It goes on and on. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 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. Kurykh (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Usted

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

Article is for a local TV show hosted by a local lawyer who gives advice. I see no third party review and therefore article does not meet WP:N because it fails WP:V. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Local TV shows are not normally notable. This is no exception: there is nothing special about the show, and there are no independent sources. Also, looking at the username, I have reason to suspect the creator has a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to WLRN-TV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete but has potential to be a well written BLP in future should wish to take the time and energy. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 04:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rita M. Gross

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

Buddhist Lopon (acharya) and scholar. The subject has requested deletion because of the insertion of improperly sourced negative information by an IP. When the subject removed the material, their change was repeatedly reverted. Judging by the lack of references and the page view stats from before the insertion of the defamatory material, this is a BLP Wikipedia can live without. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt unless the BLP subject changes her mind in light of recent apologies to her by editors who mistakenly reverted the BLP violations back into her article. While I can find next to nothing about her in Google News [4][5], she is a prolific and well-cited academic writer, and I am sure someone clued up in her field of scholarship could write a decent article on her. But the article we currently have is not it. It cites no secondary sources whatsoever. --J N 466 03:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current condition of the article notwithstanding, Rita M. Gross is herself notable. She was foundational in defining the field of feminist theology. She was awarded a one-year fellowship in 1978 by the American Council of Learned Societies. ("Rita M. Gross, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, received a 1978 fellowship from ACLS for research on Concepts of Deity as Female in Hinduism." 1979 Bulletin of the Council on the Study of Religion, American Academy of Religion.) She's written numerous introductory works on the subject of feminist theology, including a Cambridge Companion chapter: "Feminist theology as theology of religions". In her own books there is a standard sort of author biography of the sort we don't use for notability, but in dozens of scholarly books edited by others, she is given a biographical paragraph because she is selected as a contributor. Examples: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Gross is one of four noted feminist theologists who are analyzed by Kay Koppedrayer in the 2007 article, "Feminist Applications of Buddhist Thought" in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Her publisher, Continuum, honored her with the 1999 Choice Outstanding Academic Book Award for the book Soaring and Settling: Buddhist Perspectives on Social and Theological Issues. She was an editor of the academic journal Buddhist–Christian Studies. Gross is used as a reference in the Wikipedia articles Women in Buddhism, Three Roots, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, and Ramakrishna; further reading at Guru-shishya tradition; and an external link at Nondualism. I think the article should be kept and rewritten. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point here is that the subject has requested deletion since we are unable to stop people from adding "mean and inaccurate things". As the complaint points out, such things were re-added to the article but careless editors when the subject correctly removed them. I see no reason why every "notable" person should be included in Wikipedia. If someone who is not high-profile asks for their article to be deleted, we should honour that request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that the subject does not appear to be very notable. Avoidance of WP:ATTACK and other WP:BLP issues swing it for me as a deletion argument. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a gesture of goodwill. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt - as per the subjects request. - Its a shame that en wikipedia is unable to defend the articles about living people from attacks. The edits in question were all from the university where the subject was working, and its an even bigger shame that experienced editors reinforce the problems with low quality vandal patrol work. If wikipedia policies and guidelines had been implemented correctly with even a minor degree of diligence we would not find ourselves in this situation of there being a good faith request for deletion that it's almost unavoidable to honor. - Youreallycan (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator's rationale. --CrypticFRD _talk 12:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Am ok with deletion under circumstances. The sole keep !vote at the moment doesn't really show a clear case for notability. By all means, if her research is notable enough to deserve mention in a substantive article regarding feminist theology, it should be, regardless of whether a separate BLP exists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps mentioning Gross in a feminist theology article is the best way forward. People saying not-nice things about her will always be off-topic in such an article. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt I handle quite a few such cases. We have to be sensibly committed to living persons' requests without being completely bound to our notability guidelines in cases like this. Wifione ^Message 20:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has it been confirmed (for example, by OTRS) that editor who requested deletion is indeed the subject of the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some things don't require "official" verification , just a little good faith. I am in no doubt at all that the the subject is the complainant at BLPN User:Rita gross (contributions) and is the requester that her wikipedia biography be remove from its hosting here. Youreallycan (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite so confident. If the presence (and admitted poor maintenance) of the Wikipedia article about a person were the subject of such concern or distress to that person, then why would they not go to the trouble of contacting OTRS? Are we to assume that they didn't see the suggestion that they do so? Or found it too complicated?

It was suggested above that most of the vandalism came from people at the university where the person teaches. Isn't it possible that such vandals would get similar satisfaction from getting the article deleted? (We do know that many academics are very keen for there to be an article about themselves - imagine being the one academic in the department whose entry says it was deleted due to lack of notability and other concerns, when all your colleagues have articles describing their publications and achievements.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comment I have just sent her an email to her webpage email address requesting verification. Similar vandals are not going to remove their vandalism and then complain when its replaced. I have no doubt at all.Youreallycan (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence for "We do know that many academics are very keen for there to be an article about themselves" - shall we support allowing living people the freedom to "opt out" and see what happens? Youreallycan (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in requesting the lady to identify herself to OTRS. All it would take for the lady is an email from an official email... Demiurge1000 is being sensible and logical. Wifione ^Message 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"imagine being the one academic in the department whose entry says it was deleted due to lack of notability and other concerns, when all your colleagues have articles describing their publications and achievements" - imagine being an academic who professes to care about such things. they probably don't merit having one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is nothing to do with "merit".

Further, I was talking about the motivation of the (potential) vandals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable theologian. you of course understand that the german wikipedia article (roughly equivalent) will remain, but it's not as prone to vandalism as english. i see the same dysfunctional warnings to academics trying to edit out vandalism. how many reviews do you want me to add? i see she has quite a discussion with Katherine K. Young; delete her for balance? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per subject request. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note - In my capacity as an WP:OTRS volunteer. I have received an email from the subject of this article clearly verifying that they are the person that has been requesting deletion of this article asap, for the reasons that have been stated in this discussion. Youreallycan (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per persuasive nomination and first !vote, and per confirmation by Youreallycan that it was indeed the subject of the article that requested deletion. The arguments for notability do have some merit, but the history of BLP violations and vandalism, and almost no useful addition of sourced content, persuade me that this must be one of the exceptions where the BLP issues and the preference of the subject should carry the day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. →Σ τ c. 04:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to InterCity West Coast. Nobody in favour of keeping these as standalone articles. Very little content that could potentially be merged but if anyone wishes to do so the details can be retrieved from page history. Michig (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keolis / SNCF West Coast

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

Non Notable Company formed for the purpose of bidding for a franchise which it failed to win. Only passing mentions in sources and only temporary coverage not permanent notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also shell companies formed as part of the bidding process with only trivial mentions in sources:

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect all to InterCity West Coast, which directly deals with the award of this franchise. Not much you can say other their bid existing, but they are all plausible search terms. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I considered whether they were plausible redirects before suggesting deletion; Google Insight shows no searches for any of these companies. Our own web traffic statistics show little activity beyond web crawler for these articles (except yesterday when all spiked due to my tagging) - Searching is more likely to be directed either at the franchise or at the relevant parent company rather than at any of these shell companies. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not temporary. There is nothing worth merging and now that the usefulness of these entities is past they will be unlikely search terms as far as our general readership are concerned. Anyone with a specialist interest in finance and franchises will be looking to other specialist sources and they will get more from a google search anyway.--Charles (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to InterCity West Coast - redirects are cheap, and redirecting actually takes up less server space than deleting the articles does. At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, Predator plane is considered a valid redirect for General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, but I doubt it gets very many hits at all; hits should not be considered a measure of whether or not to keep or redirect or delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Predator plane is far more plausible redirect if someone can't remember the exact designation of the plane but does remember it was called Predator, these have more complicated names than either the franchise or their respective parents and are unlikely to be used as a search term. Also As an exact search term "Predator plane" averages 40-50 searches per day on Google - and that search takes them directly to General Atomics MQ-1 Predator rather than the redirect where as these shell companies get none. Additionally it seems odd to suggest that an very obscure company name should be a redirect to a franchise they had no other interaction with other than submitting a bid. These names are very obscure synonyms for parent companies and would probably be eligible for speedy deletion as a redirect in that capacity let alone as a redirect to the franchise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect all to InterCity West Coast -- However, the article does not indicate who has been the successful bidder. The article needs to be updated to make that clear. Whether we should retain the redirects or delete them I am not sure. They are almost certainly single purpose companies that will either be dissolved or mothballed. Some groups have dormant subsidiaries which they will rename and reactivate when they need a new company, rahter than forming one from scratch, but such a mothballed company will be non-trading and thus NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was retained by the incumbent Virgin Trains which makes these other single purpose companies irrelevant to the actual franchise itsself or bidding process. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, nothing happens that makes something irrelvant to an article that was previously relevant. All four companies were relevant to the bidding process before the successfully chosen, so they stay relevant to the bidding process now. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:UNDUE and also WP:RECENTISM Should have been taken into account in assessing their relevance within the article which clearly hasn't happened - that taken into account it would be quite appropriate to decide that they were never relevant outwith the current (just passed) event and may have little historical significance. That said - the InterCity West Coast article isn't (yet) up for deletion it's these Permastubs that have exceptionally minor relevance to the subject of the West Coast franchise - despite the undue weight they are currently given in the article's current state. On that basis I believe using them as redirects to it simply adds further undue weight. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how listing the four applicants for a rail franchise in an article about that specific rail franchise constitutes either undue weight or recentism - at the most, it's an argument for renaming the article to something with the year in. If you don't think the Intercity West Coast article should be in Wikipedia, by all means list that as AfD, but insisting on having no redirects to the article just in case it influences the outcome towards keep isn't grounds I'd accept for outright deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me explain how the intercity name had been used for services on the WCML since the 1960s how those services have been named "Intercity West Coast" since the 1980s, how Virgin Trains won the right to operate the service as a franchisee from 1996, how it operated that service including major incidents such as a derailment resulting in a fatality, how it again bid for an extension to it's position of franchisee and how it intends to run that franchise for the next 15 years through to 2026. Given that is the subject of the article in question, can you not see how it is undue weight or recentism to focus solely on a tendering process that lasted a few months of the 40-60 year lifespan of that service? There are grounds for deletion of the current Intercity West Coast article under NPOV, that does not make the subject non-notable simply focused on the wrong thing and correctable with re-writing. That said again we are here to discuss these shell companies and their AFD if Intercity West Coast were to be neutrally rewritten with the full 60+ year lifespan of the service then these companies would recieve no more than a trivial mention and would still be implausible redirects to that article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for renaming the existing article to reflect what it covers. If you or anyone else wants to create the article you describe, I would be happy to support that, but we do not delete articles just because the title doesn't properly describe the contents. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the renamed article would probably be suitable for deletion as in itself as the franchise renewal has little coverage in reliable secondary sources (most coverage seems to be unreliable such as SPS, Blogs, and Primary Sources) - basically it is likely to fail on notability grounds when assesed by on it's own. But again you seem to miss the point that this does not give good grounds on which these company stubs should be redirects to a franchise that they happened to bid on and where they are not going to be covered in any detail beyond a trivial mention no matter what happens to the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found coverage in reliable sources that names all the bidders here: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. And this is just stuff available online - one can reasonably assume that in the (mostly offline) trade press there will most likely be more substantial coverage. The successful bidder of a franchise of huge consequence to many passengers no matter which franchise is up for grabs, so dismissing the significance as not even meriting a redirect (and, let's face it, an insufficiently notable redirect is of microscopic consequence to Wikipedia) doesn't really make sense. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, the contract has not been won by Virgin. They have been given an extension to their old franchise. According to the latest news, the decision is now going to be made next summer. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I already said there was little (some not none) coverage however even at that this does not constitute significant coverage, there is 1 interview with Branson and perhaps 3 press releases that are repeated virtually verbatim by multiple media organisations with no real analysis of the franchise, bidding process, or bidders. This is why Wikipedia is not a news report about the press releases being shown here (whether directly from the dft or via a media organisation.) The Burden for showing that sources exist in trade materials is upon those wishing to create/retain these article s rather than a presumption that significant coverage might exist. It's also worth noting that nearly every page associated with the (supposedly) simultaneous Greater Anglia franchise bid (all created by the same editor as these ones) has now been speedily deleted (rather than redirected). Oh and thanks for the information on Virgin; it just goes to show that these articles are significantly errant, badly sourced, and shouldn't have been created in the first place until the bidding process was completed and a winner announced. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:30, 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. Editors may wish to discuss proposals for renaming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cum On Everybody

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

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

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

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

Redirect not a single (looks like a B-Side to a single), should be removed from the single's lists as well. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 15:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The orphan killer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Nili

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Limkokwing University of Creative Technology. Kurykh (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limkokwing Digital Creativity Studios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melis Bilen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was KEEP. No arguments in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Consensus is to keep. Michig (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Schmieder Arboretum

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

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

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

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

Keep. This is a college arboretum. Why would you unilaterally decide that it is not notable and "just has some trees"? There are thousands of organized arboretum articles in Wikipedia, so please do not merge it into the Delaware Valley College article. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove the notability of the Henry Schmieder Arboretum by adding multiple independent reliable sources, which is required under Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Otherwise, the guideline states that "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." (i.e. merge into Delaware Valley College)--GrapedApe (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the article now cites two scholarly references for the arboretum. Daderot (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been unable to identify the portion of Early North American Arboreta source relating to the Henry Schmieder Arboretum. Please assist.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – The nominator hasn't advanced any arguments to substantiate the opinion of the nomination, and hasn't qualified the statement of the arboretum as being unrecognized per they types of plantlife present at the arboretum. Perhaps the nominator should attempt more research, rather than asking it of others. This nomination seems to be more of an opinion rather than based upon first checking out the availability of reliable sources. Improve the article instead, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Merry Christmas, happy holidays and a happy new year. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard America

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Bring You Home. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This I Promise You (Ronan Keating song)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge and Redirect to the album. Lack of coverage means we don't have enough for a standalone article, and the details here can be covered in the album article.--Michig (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the album. This fluffed up article has almost no info worth preserving that is not already contained in album article. I have deleted the "Charts" section from the article, as the source provided contradicted the claim made. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bring You Home - The song is not notable in itself; policy suggests we should redirect to the album, as an article on that exists. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was delete.~~ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Addendum: The result was Keep. From the closing administrator's talk page (verbatim):[reply]

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

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

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

Stephanie Payne

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

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per WP:GNG. Payne has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated in the article's references section (e.g. [24][25][26]). Pburka (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Significant coverage in reliable sources confers with this topic's inclusion in Wikipedia: Herald-Sun, Yahoo News 1, Yahoo News 2. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [27] is all about her. She gets coverage. Dream Focus 21:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Anna Maria of Hohenzollern-Hechingen

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to her husband. Just another non-notable wife and mother. Hans Adler 17:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 as about an MMORPG guild that had no assertion of notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rest In Peace (dofus)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete (not speedy), the context may have been lost in translation, it's pretty clear that it's something to do with a MMORPG called Dofus, based on the translation, I belive it may be a guild for that MMORPG, if that is the case, that is enough context to pass A1 for me. I think that AfD is the way to go unless someone who knows French better than me can clarify. I am !voting delete due to a lack of any coverage in reliable sources about this. Quasi human | Talk 19:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion. Fences&Windows 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strict conditional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment There is an ongoing dispute regarding Conditional statement (logic), but that's not relevant here unless that article goes to AfD. Admins, please note that the nomination has been withdrawn. -- 202.124.72.121 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toqeer Ahmed Malik

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

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

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

Delete Although the article could be greatly expanded with the information from his official CV at [28], the material there does not indicate meeting WP:PROF or any other criterion. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy, does not even make a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

BME PR

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Deleted under G11 by myself. Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DatingCouch

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnoor Baloch

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

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

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

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

Delete — There is some credibility to the article's assertions of notability, being that she is in fact a moderately well known model and actress in Pakistan. A Google search yields several relevant results, and she has a starring role in a Pakistani television series that has its own article on Wikipedia, but even that one barely survived AfD back in 2008. This is a borderline case, and I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to barely notable living people. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several results returned on Google. There is evidence that the actress has starred in several television serials and films. The article could do with improvement although that's no reason to call the subject unnotable. Mar4d (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person is notable enough and citations can be found for enough content for a separate article. The google search gives 398,000 results (mostly about this person including many news results) and then we have books [29] [30] [31] [32]. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telecomax Group

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

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

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

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

Delete. Article is remarkably vague on what they make or do, and apparently it has never been better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kulangattil Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Google books shows zero results. We are definitely dealing with OR. — Abhishek ^Talk 17:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local family masquerading as a historical family of importance. Salih (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jeremy Gee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Limkokwing Mobile Academy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theasianparent

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

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

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

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

Delete - appears to fail all criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tahir Abbas

This discussion has been hidden from view. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MuPDF

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

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

Extra strong keep, with a dash of cinnamon. Is [33] [34] [35] enough for you? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources provide significant coverage of MuPDF, all are about Artifex Software's lawsuit and just mention very briefly what MuPDF is. This lawsuit is just a news event and Wikipedia is not the news. Any balanced article written from these sources would not be about MuPDF but would be a coatrack for the lawsuit. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any spam.--Oneiros (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You disagree with one word in my nomination, how about the rest? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Alessandra's sources. The article has some WP:V problems on account of its dependence on unreliable sources. The Palm lawsuit is probably what this article should be primarily about. – Pnm (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: apart from multiple references (including those by Alessandra Napolitano), this is one of only four FLOSS PDF libraries out there. This would be enough on its own. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being one of four FLOSS PDF libraries does not make something notable, WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because we do have enough sources for confirmation. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 23:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is more than just existance. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inferred keep, being a contributor to MuPDF I believe that it may make sense to describe the open source library which SumatraPDF is based upon. SumatraPDF itself is not proposed for deletion so by inference I feel that MuPDF should not be either. More over the library has been ported, as described in the article, to a lot of devices and linux distributions so from that perspective there may also be incentive to keep it. Finally I did find a reference through duffbeerformes scholarly links that may at least increase the notability of the page: [36] I have refrained from editing informational content of the page, though I did add the logo and the reference to the XPS software category, and so I leave it up to you guys to hash out whether MuPDF is notable enough and to include that link. Sebras (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because MuPDF is relevant enough to be in package systems of Ubuntu, gentoo, and Arch Linux (to name only three). It is also offered for Windows by various Freeware websites and mentioned in the free PDF reader campaign of the Free Software Foundation. I think interested users should find a Wikipedia page about this. --G8w (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. MuPDF has been gaining popularity in recent months on various mobile OS platforms (Android, iOS and Windows Phone) due to its lightweight, yet powerful nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.145.144.134 (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Black (author)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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