Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 December	24 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oļegs Baikovs

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

The player has never played in a fully professional league nor in the national team, according to wikipedia's list of professional football leagues. This article is also almost empty and doesn't include any references, LatvianFootball (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passes notability - Please see talk page where this subject is explained. He is indeed a less known player with complete career stats hard to find in the main football websites, however he played with FK Vardar in the Macedonian First League (included in the list of pro leagues), thus passes notability. The reason why his number of matches with FK Vardar is not included in the infobox is because we lack his total number of appereances while there. But this source informs how he receved a red card in a league match and ended suspended for 2 league matches, sourcing at least one Macedonian First League appereance for him, thus making him notable. FkpCascais (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @LatvianFootball, beside tha fact that you missed the explanation on the talk page, and the Macedonian league at the list of fully professional leagues, what do you exactly mean by saying that "doesn't include any references" when if fact there are four of them? FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as stated above, he has apeared in the Macedonian Prva Liga, meaning he passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since FK Ventspils is part of the professional Latvian Higher League, the subject meets WP:NFOOTBALL. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris Underhill

Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estelle Skidmore Doremus

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

~~Notability not established. Only cite is an obituary. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - Withdrawn by nominator - After doing some checking and consulting with people more knowledgeable than myself, an editoral obit from the NYT seems enough to establish notability by itself. Common outcomes trumps personal reservations, by any definition of "consensus". I would recommend anyone review this and consider keeping, or administrator close as withdrawn. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person was a librarian and a genealogist specializing in people named "Underhill". Neither is a claim to notability. Coincidentally, I wrote an article myself about someone named "Underhill", namely Robert L. M. Underhill. The difference is that Bob Underhill was actually notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of notability. Delete this and the other Underhill articles created by the author of this page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to Underpedia. EEng (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability requirements, sources are primary except for obituary, which everyone gets, notable or not. Yworo (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep The obit is a full editorial obit in the NY Times, and such an obit has always been considered to be irrefutable evidence of notable. It's not a local newspaper obit, which everyone in the town may get. Nor is it a paid obit. It's relatively short, 4 paragraphs,but it's an editorial obit. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NN librarian and NN Underhill. WP:NOTINHERITED. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep Full editorial obit in the NY Times and extensive work as editor serves as evidence of notability. To suggest he is not notable as the result of being a librarian, would make it seem like all librarians are not notable. That is clearly not the case, see Category:American librarians. Placepromo (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Yes, we normally consider a NYT obit to be evidence of national significance, but I'm not sure that was true in 1936. In particular, Underhill lived and worked in New York, so this obit could be considered "local". Google Books and the news archive turn up only a few routine mentions. However, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, since material from his era is unlikely to be found online. He held a responsible position at the New York Public Library and founded a society that gets quite a bit of coverage. The fact that it is primarily a genealogical society does not mean it is unimportant. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. What it mainly comes down to is the interpretation as to whether or not the sources sufficiently establish notability, which there is a lack of consensus in determining that. --MuZemike 20:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Jay Underhill

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

~~Only cite is an obituary. Notability not claimed or established. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - keep - DGG is correct, and I should have consulted him before going to AFD. Having only one cite is weak, but it is a strong citation in that it isn't a paid obit and we have to give the NYT some credit when it comes to determining who is notable enough for an obit in their paper. Likely, other cites exist and are just very hard to find. I would request an admin close as 'withdrawn'. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any notability here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Underwhelming notability. EEng (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply doesn't meet notability requirements. Yworo (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full obit in the NYT; that by itself is sufficient for notability . Their judgment is better than ours. I note this is not a paid obit, nor a small town newspaper where everyone gets obits. For the delete !voters, what;s the basis for your opinions? DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to policy/guideline/whatever indicating that an NYT obit alone (because in this case, that's really all there is -- the rest of the cites being family genealogy and so on) establishes notability? That might be true for the last 50-100 years, but in the 19th C, certainly, even the great NYT carried obits that were simply courtesy to prominent families, even if the deceased himself wasn't particularly prominent. EEng (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take over the nomination (so to speak) if that's procedurally possible. I'm not convinced by the NYT-obit argument. Even if all claims in the article are true, I don't see any kind of notability. (I don't have access to NYT just now for some reason, but I'm assume the article here on WP has everything the obit does.) This is one of a pile of "Underhill" articles someone's creating, and it certainly seems many of them aren't notable. A spirited engagement on the NYT-obit question would help clarify how to proceed on the others. EEng (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always renominate if you feel that strongly. After a little review, I tend to agree with DGG's assessment based on Common Outcomes, which is why I withdrew. Since the AFD has already gone on for days, starting over with a fresh AFD (if you choose) would be the most prudent way to proceed since this was brought to light. It isn't like we are in a hurry. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly interested in this idea that an NYT obit is dispositive. I don't see anything about it at WP:OUTCOMES -- is that what you're referring to as "Common Outcomes"? EEng (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to my deferring to DGG when he told me that in the past, an obit in the NYT has held up as enough to demonstrate notability in other AFDs even when it was the only reference in the article. A little looking around convinced me that he was correct in this statement. I still think it is a bit thin, but if the consensus of Wikipedians is that a NYT obit is enough, then it is enough. My decision to nom it in the first place wasn't to change consensus or go against it, it was to (what I thought at the time) uphold it. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process appears to be for an editor uninvolved in the discussion to close the discussion. Then you would post to the talk page of that editor if you disagree with the decision WP:NotEarly. Consensus has shifted to keep on the other Underhill articles and appears to be shifting that way here too.IDKremer (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full obit in the NYT; supplemented by several additional sources since the AFD was placed. IDKremer (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please note that I was Placepromo and now am using a different name.IDKremer (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Please see the discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Obituaries as proof of notability? for whether obits, and particularly NYT obits, can be used to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His career and accomplishments do not seem to amount to notability. In this case, I am inclined to regard the 1936 NYT obituary as a "local" obit, rather than implying national significance as it usually would today. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. NY Times sources say it all. Notable historical figure, based on 3rd party publications. Tinton5 (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and transwiki to Underhillpedia. DGG is wrong about the obit satisfying GNG per MelanieN. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Melanie is that convinced, or she wouldn't have started this conversation. It is a valid question to ask, but if you follow that discussion, she is saying that an obit in the NYT IS notable, in general. (To quote her exact words: Almost anyone getting a substantial obit in the New York Times is going to be notable.) In this particular AFD, she is saying that the NYT is a "local paper" for the purpose of this one obit, a position I would disagree with. This isn't counter to what DGG said about NYT obits in the least, it only raises the question "Is the NYT acting like a local paper instead of the NYT in this instance?". And btw, the snide remarks about "Underhillpedia" are really not helpful in an open discussion, please refrain. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the obit in the NYT looks pretty good, but there doesn't seem to be much else from what I'd consider reliable sources on this person. It's a tricky one, to be sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep, a number of people want to make this an issue about the NYT obituary and whether that indicates notability or not. I'm inclined to suggest that it does. Further, I think to say just because the obituary was in the 1930's makes it less significant is a false argument. The New York Times, was, is, and will always be the paper of record for nationally significant figures. Whether or not the NYT is authoritative, I do not believe that should be a basis for decision. It should be noted too that the original AFD request and many of the recommendations to delete were made prior to substantial improvements being made to the article, and numerous secondary sources being added. Underhill's claim to significance comes from the following:

Being an important business figure, as well as a collector of books, art, and a very rare Antonio Stradivari violin.
At the end of his life he made a sizable bequest to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the Boston Public Library, among other sources. These gifts would be of interest to those who care about either of these institutions, or broader patterns of people who collect books and art objects, as well as those seeking to understand how institutions of a national caliber like those in Boston built their collection.
Others want to make a claim that being an Underhill diminishes the significance of Francis Jay Underhill and all others with the name. The fact of the matter is that of all the other Underhill's with an AFD discussion, most if not all have been retained, and none have been deleted to date. The reality is that in their time members of the Underhill family held important positions in the military, business, literature and the arts, and related fields. The fact that Francis Jay Underhill was President of the Underhill Society of America for many years and this was prominently mentioned in the banner of his obituary, is also a claim to notability. While this may seem novel to us now, at the time participation in family and social institutions like the Underhill Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, and similar organizations conveyed a great deal of prestige on the participants.
Francis Jay Underhill is a figure which ties into the broader history of the financial sector in late 19th and early 20th century America. He worked with Fisk & Robinson and J. & W. Seligman & Co. and serves as a linking figure between these two firms that played a leading role in financing and construction of the Panama Canal among other things. To the extent that Underhill was a part of several of the leading bond houses of his times further adds to and strengthens his claim to notability for significance.

To close, as noted above, I was originally posting under Placepromo and now am posting under IDKremer, as it was advised to me that this would be a more appropriate username to use. IDKremer (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EzStorage Corporation

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

I found a a bunch of press releases and a non-notable court case. I found nothing in Google Books. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in general I do not like to support such, but this article is a run of the mill storage company that really has nothing notable about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Imperial Hotels Group. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Golf View Hotel

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing notable about this hotel. a mere 3 gnews hits none of it indepth [1]. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are 5 more articles like this one, all wikilinked from within the Imperial Hotels Group article. Either merge into one article, or group delete them. I did find mention for the hotel group in Bloomberg Businessweek and similar publications, so it exists. But notable?? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even merged together, I don't see sufficient notability. However, I wouldn't scream with rage if they were all merged into Imperial Hotels Group. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Imperial Hotels Group. Nothing substantial to merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Groenewald

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fighter with only three professional fights, all for non-notable organizations. Fails WP:MMANOT, WP:ATHLETE. TreyGeek (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails both WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. I found no significant independent coverage of him and see nothing that shows he meets any of the notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable competition record. Janggeom (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to April Rain. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Forever (Delain song)

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

Non-notable single. Didn't chart, didn't make waves. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete one of the repeated non notable band/album/song articles created by this (blocked) editor. ~~I will nominate under the "blocked" rationale.~~ I guess its banned users, not blocked. Still speedy. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't G5 afford for speedy deletion of articles by banned OR blocked users? Particularly in cases where it's related to the nature of their block? The creator of this article is currently blocked for consistently re-creating deleted articles. I'll let you decide on the speedy, since you brought it up, but in any event this should be deleted for the reasons raised by the nominator: no evidence of notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it does not apply and I've removed the template. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it. Drmies reverted, so I guess this is the way it goes. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. It's going to go. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Delain. Same for the other singles listed in that article: Frozen, See Me In Shadow, The Gathering and April Rain. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. This is clearly not notable on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to April Rain, the album it is from, which does seem genuinely notable. The only thing that this stub provides that the album entry lacks is: "The music video for Stay Forever shows the band playing in a warehouse with scenes cut in of the band at an abandoned house in the desert," which seems extraneous to me, so redirect rather than merge. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to April Rain seems good to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion (i.e. lack of sourcing and what it looks like a rough consensus that WP:NSPORTS has not been met) outweight the arguments for retention here. --MuZemike 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchir Tungalag

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

Couldn't find any sources beyond routine coverage. Seems to fail WP:GNG AND WP:NBASKETBALL. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not even sure Wikipedia has an article about the league this person plays in, much less the team he plays for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to a Taipeitimes article he was one of the lead players in the Mongolian national team playing in international match against Taiwan.[2]. He is also mentioned as playing in the Asian Games [3] Doesn't play for a national team in major international competitions like Asian Games and Asian Championships satisfy NSPORTS ? Article can be improved. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MakeSense64's argument. However the article needs to be altered to also reflect his playing in internation competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSPORTS does not assume notability of basketball players in the Asian Games. Nobody has pointed out any sources of independent significant coverage to pass WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lack of verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and Friends the Magical Railroad Adventures

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

Crystalballing. Unsourceable, notability isn't inherited from parent product. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just one day earlier a version of this article met speedy deletion by dint of CSD#G3 (blatant hoax). --Lambiam 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider it a bad sign when I search for reliable sources about an upcoming movie, and all I can find are robotic blog posts spun off from this article, and an online petition pleading for a Thomas movie. Appears to be wishful thinking by an over-enthusiastic fan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 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 Clinton, Ontario. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 03:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huron Christian School

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

non notable primary school, grades k-8. Nothing to merge to. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clinton, Ontario, the school's locality. It is already mentioned there. No reliable source coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clinton, Ontario, the school's locality as per standard procedure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clinton, Ontario per above. Buggie111 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 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 Ruben Costas. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy for Bolivia

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

Fails WP:ORG as written. Hard to search for references to it, so don't know if after 2005 it has remained. Article makes it sound like it was created for one person for one election. Even the one source in the article no longer functions. Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as redirect to Ruben Costas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm the creator of this article. Looking at the content and links I would agree to redirect to Ruben Costas given that it seems to be mainly his vehicle and hasn't really developed independently from him. AndrewRT(Talk) 02:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon

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

Comparisons of aircraft types are not really encyclopedic, comparisons are also original research, prod removed MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title may be changed. See for example "Competition between Airbus and Boeing". The purpose of the page is to facilitate the comparison, by providing elements, side by side. Because it's very complex matter, and reading the 3 helps to understand what are the big and more subtle différences .

And also to provide elements about the competition (which wins when countries decide) between these 3 aircrafts, which helps also to see what makes the differences.AirCraft (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Competition between Airbus and Boeing, aside from being a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, is an encyclopedic topic. To the best of my knowledge the "4.5 generation fighter sales battle" isn't a notable topic in and of itself, rather only being notable within the contest of the various countries' fighter competitions, where those are notable (and they likely aren't in all cases). Also...why only Rafale (so far, zero export orders), Typhoon, and Gripen (so far, the seeming 'winner' of the three)? Why not include the F-16C/D Block 42, F-16E/F, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the latest MiG-29 and Su-27/30/etc. variants? As it stands this is a Euro-centric view of a worldwide topic that, honestly, isn't encyclopedic and would be unlikely to become encyclopedic even if expanded to a worldwide arena. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But a comparison between ALL aircrafts would become very diffcult to do, and to read. One difference with AirbusVsBoeing : there's a market (WTO), while military aircrafts are usually designed for internal needs, than export. So a new aircraft is designed in function of existing aircraft in the country or group of countries (USA, Europe, Russia-India, Pakistan-China). Hence it would be relevant to do different pages for these different regions in the world. And of course some comparison with F-16 (for example) would be made in the 'european' page, when necessary, because F-16 is sort of a reference. AirCraft (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely 100% original research as it is not based on any references that actually compare the aircraft. As a secondary issue the article is very badly written, reads like a personal essay instead of an encyclopaedia article and is full or grammatical errors and empty sections. Even if retained it would have to be re-written from scratch. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it's just the beginning ! The real comparisons will come the next days ! It's simply necessary to give some basic informations before. AirCraft (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to have been created in very good faith by a new editor. However, I'm afraid that it's not an encyclopedic topic. We could have articles on the various procurement tenders the three fighters have competed for (noting that US and sometimes Russian aircraft have also been proposed for all of these tenders), but a match-up article isn't encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, unnotable, and no clear reason for this specific set of intersections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic ? This page would give an occasion to see the results of 3 different designs (1 or 2 engines, size and weight, more multirole vs air dominance, etc.), at the same moment (1985). And it's just an example. AirCraft (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page could be renamed "Fighter design (european example)". One of my purposes is to understand how much these 3 fighters are complementary, and why noone is a clear winner, for the moment at least ; and what are the results of a specific choice : 1 or 2 engines, small or big, more or less unstable, high ceiling or not, more multirole or not, etc. I know this is difficult to do, but I really see it as encyclopedic : informations and knowledge to explain the world.AirCraft (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly well-intentioned, but this topic is simply impossible to write about without violations of WP:OR. It would be an interesting subject for a magazine feature, but it isn't a topic that's appropriate as an encyclopedia article. I hope the author doesn't get so sad he doesn't want to be at Wikipedia any longer, because I can see that he has lots to contribute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While in good faith, the article consists of 100% original reasearch. Buggie111 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a one-editor opinion piece that makes quite a few subjective conclusions in its body. While I hope not to be drawn into a point-counterpoint on those subjective issues, I wish to state that I do not see this article as meeting WP:NPOV, as well as WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyteto (talk • contribs)
Delete subjective opinion, irrelevant...., you name it. Maybe OK as a magazine article with a LOT of work, but not required in Wikipedia!!Petebutt (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically this is full of OR and synthesis - not an encyclopedia article. While some of the competions which these aircraft are entered into may be notable (we already have an article on the Indian one) a pure comparison article like this one isn;t needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I just acted on a hunch, and decided to check if some of this content has been previously posted elsewhere. Many paragraphs have been entirely copy+pasted from other websites, which I believe infringes upon WP:Copyvio. The article's developer needs to learn the difference between sourcing information, and wholesale plagiarism - One is taking the content of a work exactly how it is and dumping it into your own text (not allowed) while the other is making reference to a piece of, or multiple peices of, information from that source, rewritten in original words; sections shouldn't just be ripped out of other websites and dumped onto Wikipedia - it isn't allowed, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute, especially when some of those sources aren't proper sources to begin with (Do not use forums for information - anyone can log into a forum and cry something, it doesn't make them right in the slightest); please only cite information from WP:Reliable Sources only. This article is a complete mess - It should be scrapped. Kyteto (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic, as per nom. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic and complete original research. --McSly (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pownd (American Metal Band)

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

Borderline spam, not notable regardless. Only promotional links. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found. Even MusicMight/Rockdetector doesn't have anything.--Michig (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do a google search for "pownd band" and numerous sites come up including music review sites. No more "spam" than pages on any other band. Tretslip —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A little bit of blog/fanzine notice, nothing substantial from an WP:RS source that I can see. 110 listeners ever on Last.fm suggests I'm not missing anything. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitest People U'Know (album)

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

Non notable album. Only finding commercial links. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This should also include: The Whitest Kids U' Know (album) Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye

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

This boxing match fails the WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria with no "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect" demonstrated. The coverage that exists is purely of the routine nature any sports match gets, it is likely that any of this weekends matches in the NFL, La Liga, EPL will receive the same level of coverage watched by the same number of people. Mt king ^(edits) 20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a heavyweight world title fight, in no way equivalent to run-of-the-mill league football matches as implied by the nominator, even though most people who were there probably remember the torrential rain more than the quality of the match. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"world title fight" is far more impressive than it sounds given there about 13 different organisations giving out "world titles", my point still stands that the article does not demonstrate how this fight is of any "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect". Mt king ^(edits) 01:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This fight was for three of the four major titles. The lasting effect is that the fight determined who held these championships until Wladimir Klitschko's next fight. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Relatively widely covered. Unification of some of the main belts available at heavyweight level (and heavyweight tends to be more notable than other divisions). I'd expect all heavyweight title bouts to merit some coverage - but only a weak keep as main details can (and do, I think) appear on the pages of the particular boxers concerned. Bikerprof (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article dedicated to Ring Magazine/Lineal championship heavyweight title fight (as well as several sanctioning bodies). Also, fight gained significant media coverage in the US and in Europe. Basically, fight for most prestigious prize in boxing with significant media coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V-Nasty

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

Should be speedied, but history has shown it is easier to just AFD since they bothered to have an info box. Not notable, no info. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete-No need for an AfD; all you had to do was tag it for deletion, which I've done under the A1 section on the CSD-24.107.242.3 (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History has shown me that many admin's do not like to delete under A1 or A7 if there is an infobox. I'm not sure why, but that rationale has been given to me on A1s in particular. I've had several kicked out for that exact reason. I agree with you, but just decided to bring it here, as I'm not in a hurry and hate seeing my CSDs kicked out on technical grounds. Won't break my heart if the admin at the switch just CSDs it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:25, 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. Michig (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Messy Christmas

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

Not notable annual event. Searching shows only unrelated topics of the same name. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be just a small get together. Nothing notable about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this is a private party for which no reliable sources exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like something made up in school one day. The picture is a good indication to me that it's not a hoax, and it definitely isn't a blatant hoax. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain John's Harbour Boat Restaurant

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

Not notable. References in local media only. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and the "Local" clause in WP:N is where? Besides that, as reliable independant sources say " [When it] opened in 1970, Captain John's was the city's first floating restaurant."[4] it passes WP:N as we know notability is not fleeting. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "Local" media issue only applies in specific cases related to references to academics in the media, it is not a general rule against all local media references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Per ongoing coverage in reliable sources & WP:NTEMP. References being local in nature is not a valid argument for deletion.

Davey, Steven (July 10, 2003). "Abandon ship Waterside hideaway." Now Toronto Magazine.
Brennan, Pat (April 4, 1986). "Down-under diner might sail once again". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Thompson, Allan (June 3, 1986). "City becalms 'Captain' John in bid to raise sunken restaurant". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Captain John's boat leaves watery grave". Toronto Star. June 15, 1986. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"New tax will hit MPs too". Toronto Star. August 21, 1989. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Shephard, Michelle. "Restaurant's Claws for Success, Sinking of His First Restaurant Failed to Dampen Captain John's Ambitions". Toronto Star. Aug. 14, 1995. p. C.3
Ferguson, Rob (March 16, 2002). "Captain John's awash in heavy debts; Restaurant files for bankruptcy protection". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Smith, Joanna (February 29, 2008). "Hidden depths at Captain John's". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Javed, Noor (December 22, 2009). "Final voyage for Captain John's?". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Javed, Noor (Febraury 24, 2010). "Is Captain John's Restaurant too weird to sell?". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is significant coverage. Being mentioned in the local paper is not significant. Being the first floating restaurant in one particular city is not notable. (First in the world, yes: first in Toronto, no.) Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:28, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Sherman

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

I cannot find sufficient non-trivial coverage of this person to indicate that he is notable. Tagged for notability three months ago. Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely self promotion and résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Fortune

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

I can't find sufficient RS coverage to suggest that this poet is notable. Tagged for notability five months ago. Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately I can't find much either. There is a review of her book by the publisher. The cited source in the article is only a brief mention of her as someone who knew a well known person. There's just not enough info in the article to establish notability - if she was editor of The World this publication seems non-notable too, or difficult to identify because of its non-specific name and description! I notice her Facebook page has 0 supporters, so it seems she hasn't been noticed by any of Zuckerberg's millions. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she is someone who has written a few poems and a book or two. Nothing about her is particularly notable. We delete articles on people who have written more books that have gotten more coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Superstore

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

This page does not have notable press coverage and seems to be a promotion of the corporation, written by someone with a potential conflict of interest. User:Dennis Bratland pretty much sums up the rest of the argument on notability here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Motorcycle superstore is a run of the mill internet retailer. There is no significant coverage in independent sources as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which says "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article." Instead there are numerous citations of press releases and other non-independent sources, and many citations which meet non-qualifying criteria, such as:
- sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
- inclusion in lists of similar organizations. Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.
- routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
- brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
- simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
- routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
- quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
- passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
Note that sports sponsorships are not inherently notable. There must be some third party reporting which asserts that the subject, Motorcycle Superstore, is itself notable as a result of the sponsorship. Obligatory mention of the company name because the company bought naming rights does not equal significant coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reply

-----

Hi there. I submitted this article. From this discussion, I question whether Dennis Bratland critically reviewed the key sources or attempted to verify them. Bratland's statement that all of the sources are press releases is false. Did you read references 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, or 14?

Internet Retailer, which ranks the top 500 retail websites is not an independent source? Motorcycle Superstore was ranked at #197 on that list. That is not notable? Internet Retailer's Top 500 list is not just a “list of other companies,” it is a ranking of the top retailers in the US and Canada based on online sales. Other familiar companies thank rank below Motorcycle Superstore on Internet Retailer’s list have Wikipedia entries and they are probably primarily notable because of their great success as prominent Internet retailers. I’m talking about names like CD Universe, American Musical Supply, Better World Books, Golfsmith, CustomInk, Geeks.com. I will also note that there may be a bias on Wikipedia in favor of brick-and-mortar retailers over Internet retailers, potentially citing in-store retailers that may have lower prominence in terms of sales and customer reach, but higher prominence in terms of physical visibility.

Also, among the references I included: Compete.com. Why is this prominent site not independent? BizRate? Better Business Bureau? Racer X? Radical Powersports? Moto Sports Newswire? Mobile Commerce Daily? The Fast and Dirty? How do you figure that any of these are not independent sources? Or that these are press releases? They are not press releases.

..personal attack removed by admin..

Some of the references I included do refer to Motorcycle Superstore pages, but those are strictly for historical and general info, as I was told this would be acceptable by Chzz on the Wikipedia forums. And a reference to the company’s Facebook page is the only place to verify the traffic of the Facebook page. If you think that fact is not relevant or notable, fine – that is another argument. But that is the best source for that information. And no, that isn’t a reference that proves notability or which objectively demonstrates cultural significance – but the articles from Internet retail experts and the articles from the press within the motorcycle industry cover that. It seems essential to check the independence of these sources before making incorrect claims that they are press releases, or that the company is not notable.

If rational editors feel the ratings or sponsorships are not worthy of inclusion in this article, you may have an argument - but let's hear that argument rather than this dismissive and false blanket statement about the whole article.

I read Wikipedia's terms carefully, at great length, before posting this article, and I engaged in numerous discussions on Wikipedia’s IRC to clarify the guidelines. I asked several Wikipedia editors for feedback, including Chzz, who ultimately posted the article. I recall that the terms warn against conflict of interest editing, but indicate that if a conflict does exist, to be forthright about it. I was. Yet, because of this, this article was slammed by Bratland. So, had I posted this article in disguise as a fully independent editor, as most (all?) companies surely do, it would not be seen as a conflict, right?

Wikipedia terms specify the importance of not submitting a biased article or one about a non-notable subject. I believe the article to be a factual article about a notable company. If you don't, then explain how references 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 14 are not notable or what makes you claim them to be press releases.

Mudlover (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mudlover, AFD is not the place to attack the credibility of other editors. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for Facebook likes raises an interesting question. I would say the the best -- and for Wikipedia, the only -- place to cite the number of FB likes would be newspapers like the New York Times, or magazines like Newsweek, or in books published by reputable publishers. None of these major publications have ever written about how many 'likes' Motorcycle Superstore has? That right there is a clue that it's insignificant. If this were a notable company, you wouldn't have to scrape and scrounge for good sources.
I won't get too deep in to the other arguments, except to say that those that don't just copy-paste press releases are "advertiser friendly" pseudo-journalists who make the effort to paraphrase press releases before giving companies a foot rub. Have any of these sources ever once said anything negative about a company? We all know there are hundreds of awful internet retailers, but you won't read about it at internetretailer.com. They're job is to promote and sell, and that's why they fail to support WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "...you wouldn't have to scrape and scrounge for good sources." "scrape and scrounge" is a non-guideline characterization. No evidence that this is true, either. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Scrape and scrounge" means the best sources you can find are trade publications of dubious journalistic credibility. Conversely, if your best two or three sources are say, the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, there's no argument, even if you also cite several weaker sources. Here we have nothing but the weak and dubious sources, without a strong foundation of notability. The guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria: the sources must be independent. My central point (which a reasonable person could disagree with, hence this discussion) is that Dealer News, internetretailer.com, and so forth, are not real journalists and they're not really independent. My evidence is, if you examine their content, that they only publish softball, feel-good stories that are lightly paraphrased copies of the subjects' own press releases. They only give foot rubs to companies in the industry they cover. They are never critical of their subjects. Since they only promote and praise, they are in effect, an extension of the companies' marketing departments. I assert that fails the independence guidelines.

Perhaps, if sufficient consensus exists, drawing a line between real independent journals and trade cheerleader publications could help clarify Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage in Dealer News and Mobile Commerce Daily seem to represent indepdendent coverage that establishes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – These articles appear to be reliable, third-party sources: Motorcycle Superstore's beginnings not unlike many powersports retailers, Motorcycle Superstore revs up mobile commerce initiatives, and are comprised of significant coverage that addresses the topic in detail. The article itself would benefit from some improvements, such as consolidation of some of the short sections into longer sections, ultimately reshaping the article to have a lesser number of sections, and more references from reliable sources. Adding rescue tag to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside distractions, I think the crux of the question is whether one considers publications like Dealer News or internetretailer.com to be acceptable for purposes of notability. I would happily cite Dealer News for a non-controversial fact like number of employees or year established, but industry cheerleader journals are indiscriminate, and non-critical. Because they will sing the praises of anybody in their industry, their coverage is not sufficient for notability. If you do accept these sources for notability purposes (I don't), then keep is reasonable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep it has been rescued with a ton of references meeting GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my response to Dennis Bratland's statement:

"My central point (which a reasonable person could disagree with, hence this discussion) is that Dealer News, internetretailer.com, and so forth, are not real journalists and they're not really independent. My evidence is, if you examine their content, that they only publish softball, feel-good stories that are lightly paraphrased copies of the subjects' own press releases. They only give foot rubs to companies in the industry they cover. They are never critical of their subjects. Since they only promote and praise, they are in effect, an extension of the companies' marketing departments. I assert that fails the independence guidelines."

DealerNews.com was used only to cite this statement: "Motorcycle Superstore is a privately held organization based in Medford, Oregon. Club motorcycle racer, Don Becklin, started selling motorcycle gear from the attic of his grandfather’s house in Grants Pass, Oregon in 1998."

Firstly, I'd argue that this is not exactly a controversial fact. Secondly, I browsed DealerNews for a few minutes and found several articles that do not seem 'softball, feel-good stories that lightly paraphrase company press releases' such as: Opponents question Sturgis trademark group's charitable donation, Harley-Davidson notifying Wisconsin workers of planned layoffs, Judge says 'Daytona Beach Bike Week' is generic, invalidates trademarks, Dealer Lab: Destination Powersports hits speed bump, H-D Union Strikes, and H-D Q2 Net Income Plummets 91%. I found most of these immediately right off the site's current main page.
As for Internet Retailer, it is a source for Web-based retailer information and education. I used this source to cite two things:
1. That Facebook sweepstakes drove traffic to the Motorcycle Superstore Facebook page and website, and
2. That Motorcycle Superstore was ranked as #197 among Internet retailers in overall online sales for 2010.

The Facebook sweepstakes reference reported how an innovative marketing use of Facebook drove site traffic, and it demonstrates that the high Facebook "Likes" for the company were boosted by the sweepstakes. Whether or not the article is trade cheerleading is debatable. But I'd argue that Internet Retailer's Top 500 ranking of Web retailers' top online sales is solidly independent. Unless there is evidence that Internet Retailer favorably ranked Motorcycle Superstore higher than the company deserved, Bratland's claim of favorable, biased cheerleading on this important detail appears unfounded. Furthermore, I notice that American Musical Supply met Wikipedia's notability standard without obstruction based solely on its ranking at 344 in 2006 in Internet Retailer's Top 500 rankings. Motorcycle Superstore was at 197 in that list in 2010. Mudlover (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They made $71 million one year. Notable business. They get coverage for their activities and that of their hosted game, the AMA Pro Motorcycle-Superstore.com SuperSport. [5] Dream Focus 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn/Snow. brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Israel Synagogue (Asheville, North Carolina)

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

Fails WP:GNG without multiple, independent sources. All of the sources provided are from the synagogue's website. Deletion tag was removed because "110 year old synagouge prima facie notablity", but per WP:OLDAGE, "Just because it's old, that doesn't mean it's notable." TM 19:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Historic congregation, over 110 years old, and considerable material from third-party reliable sources has now been added. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What would these be? Every reference is to the synagogue's website except for One Jewish Asheville, which is affiliated with the subject, and the newsletter of another local synagogue, which isn't RS for notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beth Israel is only one of a dozen members of OneJewishAsheville, and the newsletter is certainly third-party. In any event, the single most used source is the Goldring / Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life's Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities, which is both third-party and reliable. There's also A Popular History of Western North Carolina by Rob Neufeld (The History Press, 2007). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Jewish institutions have a very good habit of getting a lot of press in Jewish media and otherwise and from what I see this meets the GN because it has multiple reliable sources that focus in this house of worship.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article uses multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article currently exists, the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn but suggest a move Thank you Jayjg for the improvements to the article from sources I could not find. As it stands though, it is more about the Jewish population of Asheville than the Synagogue, so I would suggest we move the article to a more appropriate title and slightly refocus, but that is another discussion.--TM 02:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi TM/Namiba. Thanks for withdrawing your deletion nomination. As far as I can see, only two sentences in the article are about the more general Jewish community, and the rest is about the specific congregation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precisely because it is over a century old, in a country (the USA) that was only set up a little over two centuries ago. And now with all the excellent sources and references added to prove it. The nominator would have been well-advised to seek out some further input from experienced editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM because this type of nomination keeps on coming up and is shot down time after time. IZAK (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already within the nomination, but It's old is not ever a reason to keep it. A building around the corner from me was recently demolished because of safety concerns, even though it was 171 years old. Does every old building deserve an article? If you could, would you show all of us the guideline which states that? No, it seems some just like anything related to Judaism, so some create new guidelines to justify the existence of their articles.--TM 16:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't presume to speak for IZAK, but I've nominated quite a few synagogue articles for deletion myself, so it's obvious I don't simply "like anything related to Judaism". Also, there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. Finally, please note that this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GIABO

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

Non-notable neologism based on a single urbandictionary entry. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As well as being a non-notable neologism, I note, it's also a http://www.facebook.com/GIABO.US non-notable facebook "group" / tentacle of the anarchist group "anonymous"- Youreallycan (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Urban dictionary=completely unreliable. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is inherently a violation of NPOV by trying to force a linkage between various events that are not undisputably linked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not finding reliable sources that cover this term. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV, non-N, not sourced by RS. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Wikipedia is not the place for newly invented words Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a WP:OR just like its source. An another source covering a little about it do exists, but the article really doesn't meets the inclusion guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Aprem Natniel

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

I cannot find RS coverage of this person to support a finding of notability. Others are welcome to try. Perhaps a merge/redirect is in order. Tagged for notability since April of this year. Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It seems to be generally agreed (and I concur) that bishops of mainstream churches are inherently notable. The question is whether this is a mainstream church. Given it claims 400,000 members, I would be tempted to come down on the side of keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His church is a significant one, and he is a bishop in it; thus notable. It is a pity it is merely a stub. However, I suspect that Mar is an honorific, in which case the article should be at Aprem Natniel. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against a merge to the church, with a redirect. But are we going to populate the Project with content-less stubs of people who do not have RS coverage -- but only bare mentions in their church's website, where the stubs say only "person is an x of y"?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Stubs are perfectly acceptable and bishops are notable. The fact it's a stub now doesn't mean it always will be. Bishops usually have significant enough careers for expansion into a decent article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to why not, one reason might be that his church itself does have bios with something to say about other bishops, but nothing to say about him at all other than that he is a bishop. When that is the case with the primary source, I wonder whether we are not serving as a directory. At such time as he had a significant enough career, as you put it, is reason to invoke NOTNOW where there is no RS support of non-RS support even in his church's bio for his notability beyond the mere fact that he is a bishop. If, however, bishop-level clerics are always presumed notable -- even with an absolute absence of RS coverage -- per consensus, then I would be fine with that, but we should then as is suggested below have that inserted into the appropriate notability guideline, with the appropriate explanation as to parameters (eg, all churches?, what titles in other religions?). I'm happy to follow whatever the consensus is, but establishing it and memorializing it would help make the process transparent and application uniform IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Is there any evidence for this claim that community consensus says bishops are notable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bishops of Churches which claim bishops to hold apostolic succession and appoint bishops over a large number of Churches are notable. Just look at how many articles we have on Roman Catholic bishops. This might be a restatement of what Necrothesp said, but I hesitate to use the term "mainstream". That is an amorphouse term, and some Protestant groups use bishop for people who would not neccesarily be notable, so I think we need to be hesitant. Anyway, I am sure there is more information out there on Aprem Natniel, we may just have to wait for it to be translated from Assyrian, or maybe for the Church to grow enough in the US that American scholars give attention to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's certainly my opinion that bishops are notable. I think we are approaching a consensus on this, and it would be good if it was formalised. St Anselm (talk) 05:27, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian futsal clubs in 2010–11 season

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

WP:Listcruft, especially since all league seasons have articles. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No point with this list, when you have the same info in the season article. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:Listcruft. Redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian futsal clubs in 2009–10 season

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

WP:Listcruft and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No point with this list, when you have the same info in the season article. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:Listcruft. Redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian football clubs in 2010–11 season

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

Indiscriminate listcruft. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No point with this list, when you have the same info in the season article. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:Listcruft. Redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Junho

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

Singer of limited notability outside his group, 2PM. Tried redirecting to band page but was constantly reverted, so bringing here for resolution. Google search on "Lee Junho" -"2PM" shows a lot of unreliable fansites and social media, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Google news search shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google search on a celebrity is never wise. The popularity of 2PM is so widespread that you will only encounter various fansites and miscellaneous social media. (This could apply to other 2PM member Chansung who has not even been considered for deletion.) Try Google News for legitimate news on a celebrity instead of Google search. But using simply "Junho" would be better. His fans know him as "Junho" not "Lee Junho." I found a handful of sites searching "2PM Junho" on Google News. Another reason for lack of news may be that notable news can only be found in Korean. 2PM's success is mainly in Korea, and therefore a large amount of press cannot be expected on a member of foreign boy band. Nevertheless, he has become famous to K-Pop loving Americans as well as fans in other countries. His article in Wikipedia exists in five different languages (including the english one). Although user MikeWazowski is not convinced that he is notable, the sheer amount of fan pages that can be found should be proof enough that he is deserving of an article in Wikipedia. -SharonT (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)— Pinkmango00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually Naver is the primary search engine in Korea. Do a search using "2PM 준호" at Naver for reliable news. N8hobbs (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)— N8hobbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he seems to pass minimum notablity issues. The references are not required to be in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SharonT and John Peck Lambert above. Mikepellerin (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SharonT and John Peck Lambert and Mikepellerin above.--Lpmfx (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'note to closing admin No opinion on this AFD myself, but there is a further keep vote on the talkpage. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with kudos to Vivekananda De for the improvements to the article. Kubigula (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata S. Krishnamoorthy

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

I cannot find RS coverage of this person that would indicate notability. Tagged for non-notability a year ago. Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article makes the unsourced claim that this individual translated Tirukkuṛaḷ and Silappatikaram, both of which seem to be very significant in Tamil culture. At least one source specifies that the individual is a recipient of Sahitya Akademi and Rabindra Puraskar awards, the latter of which is apparently the most prestigious of its kind. I don't see all that much out there when searching either romanized form of his name - so we may need to get a Bengali and/or Tamil translation of his name to be certain that we're not overlooking something. — C M B J 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article's name is itself very confusing because the person being talked about here is "Subramanian Krishnamoorthy" or "S Krishnamoorthy".The word "Kolkata" is just a name of the place (it seems that he lived in "Kolkata" for a large part of his life) and not a part of this person's name which is why google search results turn up empty.Yes, this person is a Sahitya Akademi prize winner,technically "Akademi Translation Prize"-->see this from the government website of sahitya akademi award-->go to http://sahitya-akademi.gov.in/sahitya-akademi/searchAwards.jsp then select "AKADEMI TRANSLATION PRIZE" in "Awardwise search" .The name given here is "S. Krishnamoorthy Kurudtppunal " which is not to be confused;"S. Krishnamoorthy" is the person's name and "Kurudtppunal" is the name of the original tamil book that he translated(his tanslation's name is "Raktabanya").Another reliable source is this but the name again is misspelt.Thus this person becomes notable according to WP:GNG.But this article's name must be changed to Subramanian Krishnamoorthy to avoid confusion.Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this man has done translations of inportant liturature into Bengali. Now that he is under the right name source material has been added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs some clean up and would benefit from further references, but notability seems to be satisfied. Pol430 talk to me 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. None of the post-relist arguments for retention have been rebutted. --MuZemike 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jets to Zurich

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

non notable band. "charts" claimed by article are from a city radio station that publishes its chart info on blogspot Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The band have had articles, reviews and general coverage in many independent papers and magazines. And the chart whether official is still established and on a national station within the country it is based. Imperious2780 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is significant coverage, then add it, and the article will likely survive. Regarding the chart (which would grant inherent notability) - it is my opinion that the chart of one radio station does not qualify for the WP:BAND criteria in question. However, others may weigh in on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends very much on the chart, I would think. Which makes it that much more critical to find sources that show which chart, when it charted and how well it charted. If it's just a local chart, then not so much. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, from the (blogspot hosted) chart website - "The QBS Alternative Rock Top 40 is based on listeners votes" which would make it highly unreliable and unscientific. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 9 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) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon searching the internet, further links have been added to the article from reputable magazines. Digging for more info currently to flesh the article out.

Imperious2780 15:38, 10 December 2011

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Coverage is borderline-sufficient to establish notability ([6], [7], [8], [9]), and as these sources confirm, the band had a number one single in Qatar. Not a great chart, and not a massive achievement given the way the chart is compiled, but we have enough for a reasonably well-sourced short article.--Michig (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article meets general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per User:Michig. I have reformatted the refs and added a few more. Pol430 talk to me 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mirbach

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

While he is mentioned in short passing references in a handful of refs, I cannot find sufficient non-trivial mentions of this film director, cinematographer and producer to meet our notability standards. Created by an SPA~~, whose only edit was to upload this article~~. Tagged for notability in April. Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few sources in German language found that he has been working as a writer/producer/director/cinematographer, mostly contributing to documentary TV series/Infotainment and producing commercials. That is not enough to meet the criterias for WP:FILMMAKER. No article on the German wiki about him.--Ben Ben (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The author has been blocked for spamming and COI, see User talk:Rbmovie.--Ben Ben (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ben Ben.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 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 Geislinger coupling. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic coupling

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

Hopelessly confused article. This used to be a poorly-named and poorly-translated(?) article on the all-metal Geislinger coupling. It's now a vague duplication of elastomeric gear and Oldham couplings. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coupling. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts are accurate enough to merge? The problem now is that the article is a partial duplicate of two different articles, and the two strands are intermingled so that there's no clear statement that could be extracted for a useful merge. Anything this article says that could be used within coupling is already within coupling. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geislinger coupling. Sorry, I didn't review Geislinger coupling. Right, no need to merge because info is already there. In fact, the 2 articles are clearly the same, so IMHO, this should have been redirected without the AfD process. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geislinger coupling per P199. Buggie111 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be redirected, I'd suggest Coupling as the target. Geislinger couplings are weird and quite specialised, most elastic couplings are the simpler elastomers instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the info of this article matches the content of Geislinger coupling much closer. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:31, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Estree

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

Non-notable performance artist, as best I can tell. Tagged for notability and as an orphan over a year ago. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strangely I can't find any references to her online apart from her own website (which was last updated 3 years ago). The award that is mentioned seems to be very minor, from what I can ascertain. Her compositions and performances seem to be non-notable too. Sionk (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill performer, nothing notable about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 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 merge to University of Pretoria. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPSpace

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

Fails WP:ORG. Created by someone affiliated with the library. Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selective merge to parent article University of Pretoria RadioFan (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note; I have blocked the creator of the article for the pretty obvious username issue. No comment on the article itself just yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per radio.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 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 Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs), presumably under CSD A3. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Underwood's Fourth Album

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

This article is unsourced, and contains no useful information about the article it is supposed to be about. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if there is not yet any verifiable information about this album, then there is nothing we can use to write an article right now- although of course, an article should be created under the appropriate title once information becomes available. Prod removed without comment or change by anon. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy delete. Do you think this could be speedied under A3? There's no content here except a rephrasing of the article's title. I'm going to tag it accordingly and see if it will fall under that banner. The album will undoubtedly be made, but this is just crystal balling right here. The news reports I've found for it show that recording just finished but that there's no release date at all just yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year 2011

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

Contested PROD. Violates copyright, listcruft, OR...need I go on? Giant Snowman 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Parent article is IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year, which has, in turn, parent article International Federation of Football History & Statistics. There is clearly no original research here, because the list was published elsewhere. There is no copyright issue because the list is simply a collation of data in the public ___domain and is uncopyrightable. The only question is whether it is listcruft. As this is article is simply additional detail for the notable parent, I see no case for deletion in this respect either. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how on earth is a list of people who have scored goals, as collated by one organisation, notable in any way whatsoever? Giant Snowman 18:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the parent article has disappeared, it would be an anomoly if this remained, so I have struck my !vote. I still don't much agree with the nomination - it's clearly ridculous to claim something is both original research and a copyright violation, for starters - but that's pretty much moot now. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the above. Zero notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year. If the award by itself is not notable, then one particular iteration of it certainly isn't either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Dan-Air Luton incident

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

Fails to meet the criteria for notability at WP:AIRCRASH, as well as general notability. The subject matter is also covered adequately at London Luton Airport#Accidents and incidents to whichthe article title could be re-directed Petebutt (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no redirect)- if article does not meet notability, and is already covered in Luton airport article, then redirect is probably also unnecessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:PERSISTENCE, no need for a merge or redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article and the refs make clear this was a minor incident that resulted no deaths, no injuries and just some damage to gear doors (non-structural), a tailskid (which is designed to be ablative) and a couple of belly panel skins, plus a ground ILS antennae. All damage was quickly repaired and both the aircraft and the airport back in service quickly. The crew were not even aware that they hit anything, so minor was the impact. If this were about a surface accident it would be similar to an article on a car hitting a traffic light post and taking it out of commission, where both the car and the traffic light were back in service in short order. Even though there are some refs the incident fails WP:AIRCRASH and is not sufficiently notable for its own article. This incident bears mentioning in the airport article, where it is currently mentioned, the article therefore is redundant and should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the incident can be adequately covered by an entry on the airport, airline and aircraft type articles. Not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for obvious reasons as I nominated the article for AfD.Petebutt (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator- William 00:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon McCroskey

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

MMA fighter with only one professional fight: fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:MMANOT, and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. One professional fight for a minor MMA organization and no significant independent coverage indicates a lack of notability to me. Jakejr (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow keep. Sources have been added, establishing the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers In Action

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

Non notable, per WP:GNG ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 19:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 100% Publishing, the album. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets the GNG. Coverage includes Song of the Day at NPR [10], single review at Pitchfork [11], at the NME [12], at FACT, [13], at This Is Fake DIY [14], at Drowned in Sound [15]. Director's Cut feature about the video at Pitchfork, [16], one of Drowned in Sound's Videos of the Year [17], winner of Best New Director and Best Urban Video at UK VMAs [18]. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage found by 86.44.x.x. HurricaneFan 25 — 15:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 86.44.31.213. Those look like fine sources. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the first two links, and yeah, that is notable coverage for this song. Dream Focus 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage with which the article can be improved. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 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 speedy delete by Alexf (talk · contribs), under WP:CSD#G12, as unambiguous copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 17:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle market intermidiares

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

Unreferenced article full of original research and here solely for promotional purposes. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and seems like advertising sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 14:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment already deleted G12 it seems. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:59, 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 speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ede (Composer)

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

WP:NOTABILITY. A composition student, shows no sign of meeting WP:NMUSIC. Editors have challenged CSD and deleted PROD claiming that who he studies under makes him notable, but of course notability is not inherited in that way. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated in article. Absence of ghits. asnac (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - no significant coverage. I believe there's some meat or sockpuppeting going on there as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Daniel: Please look at the references on the article with regard to meeting notability, in particular the Experimental Music Catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Letin (talk • contribs)
- You are referring I think to this ref? But there is no mention of a "James Ede" at that page, nor as near I can tell any links that lead anywhere where he might be mentioned. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well here's the thing. Of course the person is not notable by our normal standards. He's nineteen. This is a good age to be in some ways, but not usually a correlate to notability in serious music unless you're Mozart. More importantly, no one has written anything about this person, according to Google. There is an article on a James Ede, a cricketeer. There is a James Ede with the delightful handle of "Darts Whore", a James Ede who is a political activist, a James Ede who deals in antiquities, a person named James Ede-Golightly, a James Ede who apparently enjoys ingesting unusual animals, a James Ede who works in films, and several other James Edes. But none of these are our James Ede. The only information I can find on our James Ede is his own website. This is not a good sign.

On the other hand, he seems somewhat more accomplished then perhaps some other teenagers, and, you know, by deleting these articles we are not being welcoming to new contributors, which we are supposed to be doing. So maybe we need to be more flexible about all this. But given the current state of our standards, I think it's safe to say that there needs to be something on this fellow beyond his own website. So delete. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Obviously not notable, and the article doesn't actually assert any importance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Thank you for your balanced, well thought through response Herostratus. Glad to hear your constructive response. After reading all this I reluctantly agree that the article doesn't meet the standards of wikipedia and should be deleted. I would personally be more flexible if this were my website, but at the end of the day, it's not, so I will conform to the standards of its owners. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Letin (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Speedy Delete A7 - there was a speedy deletion template on the page but someone removed it without explaining why. This person is, to my belief, un-notable and there is a lack of proof of his notability in the article. Maybe when he becomes more well known there can be an article about him. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) ^Merry_Xmas! 23:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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 keep. --MuZemike 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Ann McWilliams

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

Not a notable person, been tagged with verification issues for two years, and was likely created by person that the article discusses (see Special:Contributions/Damcwilli). —Eustress ^talk 03:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was a major general. Of course she's notable. No reason given by the nominator for her lack of notability in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is all about her post-military career, which is not notable. Plus, I don't think a major general (two-star general) is notable in and of itself. —Eustress ^talk 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a little clean up and added some sources and all that took about 15 minutes. With more effort, I am sure there are more sources out there. Under WP:GNG she seems to meet the minimum criteria. Under WP:MILPEOPLE, she meets criteria #3 by holding a flag rank. I will admit that I do not like autobiographical vanity pieces, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient criteria to delete. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- WP:SNOW per Necrothesp & EricSerge; exceeds WP:SOLDIER #3; one star is sufficient if V and RS are met. Dru of Id (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - meets WP:SOLDIER (aka WP:MILPEOPLE) criterion #3; stars on the shoulders = assumed notability. WP:V and WP:RS also met. Doesn't matter that "the article is all about a non-notable post-military career", notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Per Bushranger. Why was this relisted?--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting Comment It was relisted per a request on my talk page because WP:MILPEOPLE is an essay and not a notability guideline.--v/r - T P 15:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage from independent, WP:RS sources. Sources provided in article are useful for informational purposes, but nor for notability:

"US Army Women's Foundation". Awfdn.org. – Source from a foundation where she is a board member—not independent.
"Real Americans Join Mrs. Bush to Watch Speech". Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov.</ref> – Trivial mention / PR.
"President Bush Announced His Intention to Nominate". Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov.</ref> – Sourced from her former employer—not independent.
"Congressional Record - 108th Congress (2003-2004) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)". Thomas.loc.gov.</ref> – Brief notice announcing withdrawal of nomination. No other info, no commentary, no debate.
"Award Recipients - Stephen F. Austin State University Alumni Association". Sfaalumni.com. – An award from a school she attended—not independent.
"Lon Morris College | Find Yourself" (PDF). Lonmorris.edu. Link to the junior college she attended and where she currently serves on the board. I could not actually find her mentioned on the site, but source is not independent, anyway.
"Army Women's Foundation". Armywomensfoundation.org. – Same as #1, source from a foundation where she is a board member—not independent.

Similarly, web searches find items that are primary, non-independent, social media, or provide only trivial coverage of the subject. If I have missed substantial coverage from independent, WP:RS sources, I would appreciate if another editor could provide it. I would also observe that WP:MILPEOPLE is neither a policy nor a guideline. It could well be that most major generals are notable, but this one is not. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goodyear's analysis of the sourcing is spot on. Moreover, setting aside even questions concerning whether these sources are independent, none of them except the press release from the White House represent substantial coverage. WP:SOLDIER is an essay and ought not have anything like the weight of WP:GNG in guiding discussions such as this, and it has not been demonstrated that this individual passes WP:GNG -- at least, not as far as I can tell, sterling and laudable efforts to find sourcing notwithstanding. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; subject of the article clearly meets WP:MILPEOPLE, and as a Flag/General Officers within the United States Armed Forces are appointed positions which require congressional approval. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How on earth can someone who reached the third highest rank in an organisation the size of the US Army possibly not be notable? This is nothing more than a sour grapes challenge to a legitimate snow close by a minority of deletionist editors who didn't like the result. Should never have been reopened. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was initially closed four hours after the first vote was cast--how exactly is that "legitimate"? The closing admin, at least, allowed that the point was subject to debate and reopened it on request.
If "keep" voters cannot provide actual evidence of notability and can offer nothing better than proof by assertion arguments that "stars on the shoulders = assumed notability", an idea that has been rejected as a guideline (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Poll), then how can they expect a neutral closing admin to do other than delete? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Once again the fallacious argument that one can prove notability. Notability is inherently subjective. It cannot possibly be proved. It is determined by consensus and common sense. I find it incredible that anyone could argue that someone who has reached general officer rank is not notable. Once again we have the ludicrous notion surfacing that minor "celebrities" who briefly have major media coverage in this celebrity-obsessed era because of their looks or the size of their breasts or sportspeople who have played a single match at first-class level are inherently notable, whereas military officers or civil servants who have reached senior positions after a successful career (although one not exciting enough to be covered by the notoriously shallow media) are not. I would contend that anyone with a modicum of common sense would be able to see quite how ridiculous this test of "notability" is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"[Notability] cannot possibly be proved"--especially if zero substantial, independent evidence from WP:RS sources is provided. "It is determined by consensus"--such as the one that previously rejected the notion that "generals are generally notable"? And note that the failed guideline WP:MILPEOPLE does say "generally", not "always". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Note that her (albeit withdrawn) nomination ~~to 3 star~~ came less than 6 years after Claudia Kennedy becoming the first 3 star, but still 5 years prior to Ann E. Dunwoody becoming the first 4 star. I realize this is small-number argument, but while the U.S. military has roughly 1000 active flag officers, she was still one of the first in this notable, and noticeably small, subset. Dru of Id (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (Edit) Dru of Id (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the precise argument is here, but if there is substantial coverage from independent WP:RS sources on that aspect of her career, then it would surely advance the case. Is there such coverage? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see a credible assertion of notability let alone evidence, also weakly sourced. Pol430 talk to me 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of Wikipedia:MILPEOPLE#People, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuben D. Jones.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MuZemike 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MuganBank

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

Seems like advertising. sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 14:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- Under A7 and G12 of speedy deletion. --Katarighe (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patently inappropriate on so many grounds. asnac (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete advertising. --Axel™ (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to be a candidate for speedy to me. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Voted too hastily; I suggest those who voted speedy above should reconsider. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why do u want that this article have to be deleted? Garabag (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC) — Garabag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ this is a bank which i work. and want to place information about MuganBank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garabag (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC) — Garabag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep why do u want to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.13.90 (talk • contribs) which is quacking as User:Garabag. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As G11 Totally promotional and would need to be fundamentally re-written. Also, a bank that is not in any way notable. Pol430 talk to me 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leading research groups in Iran

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

After some consideration, I do not see any way to salvage this article into a list with manageable inclusion criteria and a workable length. To my knowledge there is no external organization that would quantify what groups constitute "leading" research groups. It also is not immediately apparent that there are any similar articles for any other nation or geographical area that could be used as a model. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are similar list articles already. List of universities, colleges, and research institutions in Berlin, List of universities, colleges, and research institutions in Kiev and List of universities and research institutions in Melbourne. However, all of them appear to be in need of sources and better inclusion criteria. With a renaming this could be made into a similar list.. e.g. List of universities and research institutions in Iran MakeSense64 (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but would anything be gained by renaming this article, rather than starting a new article at List of universities and research institutions in Iran or improving List of universities in Iran? The list under discussion currently contains neither universities nor research institutions. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it looks now is mentioning all "groups" as "group led by <name of scientist>". So it is more a list of leading scientists in Iran. We already have articles like List of Russian scientists, and I also found List of contemporary Iranian scientists, scholars, and engineers, which appears well developed. This supports delete of this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a real issue here is the appalling state of List of universities in Iran which needs to be tidied. This tidying should include (*) an opening that explains the types of universities (and tertiary institutions), their entry requirements and funding sources; (*) convert the list to a table, so it can be sorted alphabetically or by region without duplication; (*) Standardizing the actual list to introduce a red link for probably-notable institutions as well as the current url; (*) include total student numbers and the degrees issued. I know nothing of Iran or universities in Iran, but anyone attempting a tidy is welcome to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:MakeSense64. I'm concerned with issues of WP:OR as well. It's one thing to have List of Iranian scientists (with wikilinks as appropriate). It's quite another to assemble a list of "leading" research groups in various fields, apparently belonging to various scientists. What governs the inclusion in such a list? What could a source be for such an article? There may be possibility for an article, but not until someone answers basic questions like these. It would surely look nothing like the article under review. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The keep rationales have more ground in policies and one of the delete reasons is WP:Not notable (an argument to avod.) The nominators WP:BLP1E argument was credibly refuted by Mbinebri. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justė Juozapaitytė

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

WP:BLP1E on a model whose only claim to significance is appearance in a TV show she did not win, would support a redirect to Britain and Ireland's Next Top Model, Cycle 7 Mt king ^(edits) 19:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was the runner-up of one of the Top Model franchises, was a finalist in another model-centric Lithuanian reality show, and was the face of a TV network for a year. This meets criteria #1 of WP:ENT, IMO. Plus, the article demonstrates some coverage of her. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:12, 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, Sandstein 12:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about scrapes through on notability. References are not terrible. Pol430 talk to me 17:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanner

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

Publication with no evidence of notability. I can find nothing in reliable sources discussing this subject. Kinu ^t/_c 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Content not verifiable and therefore fails WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimentitis

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

Dictionary definition of a non-notable word. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Falcon8765. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baron von Lector

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

Appears to be non-notable. Tagged since July. Article created by SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon Epeefleche's explanation. Folgertat (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither article nor Google search indicate subject meets notability criteria set out in WP:ENTERTAINER. asnac (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not demonstrated. Frank | talk 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion outweigh the sole argument for retention given. --MuZemike 20:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Lewis Lockwood

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

Non-notable person. Only possible claim to notability is being a founding member of a fraternity and being "admitted to Miami University in Oxford, Ohio at the age of eighteen." No real evidence of notability, and no, I don't think that breathless felicitations from the fraternity count toward establishing notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep At the risk of falling into the otherstuff trap, I'd point out that some of Sigma Chi's other founders have their own pages. However maybe he didn't do as much as these outside of the act of foundation, and there would be a case for saying that being listed in the Sigma Chi article (which he is) is sufficient. asnac (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Further comment - ah, now I see that one of the other founders has also been nominated. asnac (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I've nominated all of them who do not have a serious claim to notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not satisfied Pol430 talk to me 17:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pollack PR Marketing Group

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lack of multiple independent sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another public relations business advertising on Wikipedia. The description of what this business does is vaguer than most, even in a field where vagueness is the rule. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article demonstrates nothing special about it worthy of inclusion. asnac (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, as per WP:CORP. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:23, 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 keep. Notability established (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. G.B. Pant High Altitude Zoo, Nainital

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

I tried to CSD this as a NN Corporation or organization - another author disagreed and removed the CSD with the comment that "a zoo is a place, not a company..." Whatever it is, it's non-notable and article for the city where this zoo is already mentions the zoo. No non-trivial coverage in WP:RSes. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The zoo is officialy named after Govind Ballabh Pant, but is commonly known as "Nainital Zoo". Googling for "Nainital Zoo" will help you find coverage in reliable sources. utcursch | talk 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A gsearch as per Utcursch indicates this is an established institution of sufficient note. asnac (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above suggestions, I just added a relevant fact from The Pioneer. The article is a stub, but it seems to have sufficient notability. Cmprince (talk) 21:33, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xe Watch

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

Not notable. Two references are to their own site and youtube; others have 1 brief mention of the organizer giving a quote. Also, possible COI: page was created by Cstalberg which is the name of the group's organizer. HotshotCleaner (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick scan of the articles shows that apart from the youtube video and press releases, only one of the other three articles references the group and even then only to say that the group was forming. The other two links reference the Blackwater incident and do not mention the group at all. One of the references is hidden behind a paywall. A search did not bring anything reliable up (mostly links to the group and their press releases), leading me to think that this is just a case of WP:EVENT in that the group really only got noticed in connection with this one event (which caused them to form) and have not gotten any substantial coverage since then. I honestly don't even think this would merit a redirect to any of Blackwater's sites since this is just not a notable group.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Tokyogirl. This doesn't pass WP:GNG. GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MuZemike 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse T. Quirion

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

Article reads like a resume, person does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Donald Albury 11:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I will note that article is pure self-promotion; aside from some technical edits such as adding categories, all the edits have been from User:Jessequ and one IP address, User:156.39.0.251. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page Jesse T. Quirion highlights a number of milestone projects that Mr. Quirion has completed for the City of Port St Lucie which includes projects such as: The Westmoreland ARRA funded Paving project, priority sidewalk projects, school bus stop pilot program and the development of the City's Fiber Optic network. Without Mr. Quirions contributions to the City of Port St. Lucie the City would not be were it is today. Rather than proposing deletion of this wiki page a recommend reclassifying this article as a notable resident of the City Of Port St Lucie. Resident of the City of Port St Lucie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.139.32 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article details a number of accomplishments and projects completed under the direct guidance of Jesse Quirion. The projects completed and accomplishments have been referenced at the bottom of the page by a number of external sources including the Port St Lucie City website, Treasure Coast Newspaper and a number of other non associated websites. As stated above, I recommend this page to be recategorized as a notable resident of the City of Port St Lucie for his contributions to the growth of the City's infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.138.153 (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well written and documented. This is very helpful as I am looking for a civil engineer. I'm thankful for resources such as this to help me in my search for another employee.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.136.38 (talk • contribs) — 166.205.136.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pol430 talk to me 17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and think this article should stay part of the Wikipedia community. This article cites references to projects designed and completed by a person who made a difference and improved an American city, Port St. Lucie, FL. Port St. Lucie would be without many important structures and functions without Jesse Quirion. It is important to make information like his projects and accomplishments available to the public, similarly to crediting an architect's name in association with a building. Here is an example of a similar wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_L._Albertson and many more are listed under civil engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.124.2 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This information is valuable to Wikipedia, especially for those interested in a career in civil engineering.

Speedy delete. Blatant résumé, COI, and vanity piece. Directly violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catorgorize This article should be rewritten, it is clearly an article detailing the numerous governmental projects and accomplishments completed by the individual and is not a resume or self promotion. The article should be recorgorized and possible rewritten to read more as a list of the accomplishments and not sound as if it is to be a resume. This article should be kept in the wikipedia encyclopedia as a notable resident.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.137.238 (talk • contribs) — 166.205.136.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pol430 talk to me 17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I'm sure he's very good at his job or whatever, but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and is not a place for anyone to post their CV. Article doesn't make a meaningful assertion of notability, and fails to meet general notability guidelines. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, all the sources cited merely quote him in a story about some engineering project and describe him as a "civil engineering intern" or similar which doesn't qualify as significant coverage. Article is obviously written by the subject as a self-promotion exercise and would require a fundamental rewrite even if he was notable. None of the Keep opinions above are remotely based on notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 11:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional, would require a fundamental re-write to become encyclopedic; even then, I do not believe notability would be satisfied. Pol430 talk to me 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaadein (Short film 2012)

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

Contested PROD. The PROD rationale, with which I agree, was Fails WP:NOTFILM. I can't find any independent reliable sources indicating that the notability requirements are met. bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable. Textbook example of why we need a film equivalent of (db-band) for speedy deletions. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTFILM, as abominably non-notable non-existent film that may or may not ever get made, by non-notable kids, at least one of whom is obvious the author of this "article". I agree with the other Mike that we need a book/movie/TV equivalent of db-band for these not-quite-spam efforts; but I fear it will never happen. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Lack of notability caused by the fact that it does not yet exist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe someday, this short film will exist. Maybe someday, it will be written about by significant film critics, or studied in universities. Maybe someday, it will win a major award. And on that day, Wikipedia will need an article about this short film. But that day is not, alas, today. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:07, 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 keep. However, please add more third-party references, or a lot of people might want to nominate it again. Max Semenik (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JamVM

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

See this blog post by the software's author. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nom mostly. Last prod is fundamentally sound, removed by an editor who added a current work paragraph. I don't see enough indications of notability here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary claim to fame here appears to be the assertion that the Dalvik Virtual Machine is based on JamVM. However, not only can I not find a reliable source for this (a blog post and a forum comment both assert it individually, but with no evidence other than "seems to be" or "read the code", and none of the reliable sources given in the Dalvik article mention it at all), but notability isn't inherited and if that's the only noteworthy aspect of the subject then little more is needed than a footnote to that effect in the Dalvik article. Personally I wouldn't even both with that unless a better source can be found. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we need to be very careful here as we are potentially making a serious allegation. Even if the article is kept, unless there is a more reliable source, I think it needs to be removed. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Early android/dalvik technical pages mentioned JamVM explicitly as the runtime used. See for example http://web.archive.org/web/20091027081958/http://pdk.android.com/online-pdk/guide/debugging_native.html which explains how to debug native (JNI) code on Android and includes instructions on how to run GDB and gives stack traces that matches the JamVM source code. Dalvik seems to be a newer runtime that Android uses now, which might or might not be based on or inspired by JamVM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.103.228 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of JamVM (Robert Lougher). For the record, I didn't create the JamVM page, nor have I edited it (beyond updating the release information on one occasion). I prefer others to make the case for JamVM, but I will provide some information in case it can help the case for non-deletion.
Firstly some information regarding its current status. JamVM is very much actively developed. It has had several new releases, and it is widely used, both in its GNU Classpath version, and its OpenJDK version.
The last release date of January 1, 2010 is misleading. In the past, JamVM only worked with GNU Classpath. GNU Classpath consisted of the Java class library, it did not contain a Java Virtual Machine. As such, JamVM was packaged and released separately, but both are needed for a working Java system. Regular releases of JamVM were needed to keep in sync with changes in GNU Classpath. Since the release of OpenJDK, GNU Classpath development has mostly ceased, its last release being GNU Classpath 0.98, on February 5, 2009. The JamVM release date of January 1, 2010 relates to the last GNU Classpath version of JamVM.
I rewrote JamVM to support OpenJDK during 2010, with an initial announcement on my blog on February 16, 2011 [19], and an announcement at FOSDEM [20].
It was then integrated into IcedTea by Xerxes Ranby and committed [21]. Since then JamVM has been released as part of IcedTea, thus removing the need for separate releases of JamVM. It is supported by both IcedTea 1.x (OpenJDK6) and IcedTea 2.0 (OpenJDK7) (the latest release). See the release announcement of IcedTea 2.0 for proof of JamVM support [22].
As part of IcedTea, JamVM is packaged for most Linux distributions, including Debian and Ubuntu, across a wide range of architectures. After discussions at the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Budapest (of which I was a guest), and after extensive testing, JamVM was selected as the default Java Virtual Machine for Ubuntu 11.10 on ARM. Without putting too fine a point on it, this means that when you run IcedTea (java) on the current version of Ubuntu/ARM, you are using JamVM.
The Ubuntu blueprint can be found here:[ https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/JvmOnARM] and the changelog making JamVM the default VM can be found here: [23]
The full changelog for OpenJDK6 is here, [24] with references to JamVM as the default VM for oneiric/ARM (Ubuntu 11.10) and armhf.
Further points for JamVM notability is its inclusion into all the popular embedded build systems (the GNU Classpath version of JamVM), including openembedded [25] and busybox buildroot.
JamVM has also been extensively used within academia as the basis of research. This is indicated by over 200 hits from a Google scholar search: [26] and JamVM is also featured in books on embedded Linux, e.g. Pro Linux Embedded Systems (Gene Sally) [27]
Linaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaro) also recently discussed Java support on ARM [28]. As with Ubuntu, their decision was to support JamVM.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.127.218 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Only claim to notability is based on an allegation from a blog that Google copied it. If we can substantiate the claim, then per User:Thumperward, that fact can be included in Dalvik Virtual Machine as a) the specific allegation would suggest it is a fork from an earlier version and b) It is Dalvik that is notable not a product that it was based on. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I never used JamVM yet. However, since JamVM is being used as Java Virtual Machine for ubuntu as the default VM (in ARMs Ubuntu), I think it is an important VM and a notable software. –ebraminio^talk 09:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: JamVM is not only interesting because other virtual machines like Dalvik are inspired by it, but also because it is ported to so many architectures, it is the only JVM ported to ARMEL, that it is used in university courses to teach about garbage collection (see the Jam-o-lizer garbage collection visualization system), optimizations for (java) runtime systems (see YETI: a graduallY Extensible Trace Interpreter based on JamVM) and various university courses that include teaching common virtual machine techniques like stack caching, direct-threading, super-instructions, etc, because it is so neatly written. Should these facts and references be added to the article at this point? Or is it more appropriate to wait to add new stuff till the article is no longer marked up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.103.228 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: JamVM is an important VM because of it's a simple and elegant designed JVM. As already stated, it's the default JVM for ARM Ubuntu and it is used/patched in several Universities (included mine (University of Paris East)) because the code is not hard to read compared to other VM. There is no direct relation between JamVM and Dalvik, but when I read the code of Dalvik I've found that some parts use tricks pretty similar to the ones use (or used to be exact) by JamVM but does it something that it worth mentioning, I don't think so.

Rémi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.167.50.47 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having a readable and understandable VM is important, especially as already mentioned when its being used for academic study. In and of itself that would suffice for notoriety to my mind. Not only that but debian provide opt-in popularity statistics for packages that they distribute, which shows that out of the 118626 debian packages (at the time of writing) 'icedtea-6-jre-jamvm' is in 2406th place - ie within the top 2.5% most frequently installed packages. Bear in mind that that places it above the 'flac', 'wireshark' and 'mencoder' packages, none of which have wikipedia pages flagged for deletion on notoriety grounds. I'm not claiming that popularity is a necessary criteria for notoriety, but surely its a sufficient condition? You can check http://popcon.debian.org/by_inst for full listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWarburton (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have used JamVM as a basis for a modified research VM used in my academic research. Results have been published in IEEE proceedings as a peer reviewed paper http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1541156 and have been followed up by further work building on the first work. For its source code's ease of reading and understanding JamVM is a frequent choice for virtual machine researchers. Aszegedi (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Many open-source VMs have pages on wikipedia. Unlike JamVM, many of these are no longer maintained and are only of historical interest. JamVM, however, is active, up to date, packaged by leading distributions and has many current users. It seems odd that JamVM gets fingered for deletion ahead of these. Also, the paragraph that caused so many problems has been removed. Ploppy (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm striking the delete for now solely due to the apparent coverage in peer reviewed literature. However, I will note that I disagree with most of the other justifications for keeping made so far. For example, WP:OTHERCRAP is not a reason to keep - if you have problems with other articles nominate them too! Furthermore, readability of code does not necssarily make the subject notable - and it certainly isn't the job of Wikipedia to make the subject notable because it has readable code. Equally, JamVM could shipped with every electronic device on the planet, however it still wouldn't be notable if there weren't reliable independent sources top atest to this Pit-yacker (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mostly verifiable content, many mentions in literature, several articles with special focus on the JamVM, subject of a USENIX talk; for links, start with http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=jamvm, whose first five results include two substantial citations . Shouldn't there be some requirement for spending 90 seconds on basic checks like the above Google Scholar search before AfD-listing articles receiving ongoing constructive input? Having said that, kudos to the editors who pointed out the issues with sourcing in the article, which should be and can be fixed. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The top five results on that Scholar search are all to papers by the project's author. I wouldn't exactly describe them as secondary sources even if they're peer-reviewed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --MuZemike 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Kelly (Ice Road Trucker)

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

Per WP:BIO (especially WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO): notability not established; relies largely on 2 primary sources, including a self-published source serioushat 09:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has starred in several 13 part TV series that have been transmitted world-wide. If this subject in not notable then around half of all biographical articles in Wikipedia should probably go! PRL42 (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia guideline WP:BIO. serioushat 02:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ice Road Truckers. All news sources that I can find ([29] and [30]) only refer to her in reference to the show (which itself has demonstrated some notability). Fails WP:GNG Significant coverage, coverage that does exist is not independent of the subject nor is it from secondary sources.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. She is looking good and she will be a big star - I wanna marry her :-) --Brutus Brummfuß (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fan is a failed reason to keep. Please read Wikipedia guideline WP:BIO. serioushat 02:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes over the bar of wp:notability. Notes: two books and one deadlink: Guinness World Records 2011, Arctic Trucker, http://reality-tv.lovetoknow.com/Lisa_Kelly_Ice_Road_Trucker . Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Great coverage. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and leave a hatnote at Lisa Kelly pointing to Ice Road Truckers. No notability outside the TV show, lacks significant coverage and none of the arguments for keeping are convincing.--Michig (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability defines whether or not we have a stand-alone article—the lack of notability is not by itself a reason to delete content. Is there something objectionable about the content? Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is already summarized in the article about the show. If there's anything well-sourced (ideally not to facebook and the subject's own website) that could be merged there, fine.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable person. She has appeared and been credited in two television series. IRT: Deadliest Roads - 23 episodes (link), and Ice Road Truckers - 39 episodes(Link) . She has also appeared as a guest on the talk show Late Show with David Letterman. She also has a entry on the Internet Move Database - Lisa Kelly IDionz (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO and Template:BLP IMDb refimprove. serioushat 03:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant independent coverage. Simply being on a reality show does not make one notable. Kuguar03 (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodgen Stewart

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

Lack of notability. Mathonius (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think article Rodgen Stewart should be deleted because

all the information in it is valid to my knowledge --86.135.133.39 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This post misplaced at the bottom of the daily log and moved here. Dru of Id (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I do not think Article Rodgen Stewart should be deleted because the information in it is valid to my knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.133.39 (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally, There is no need to delete it please, please could you just point out parts that needs changing and i will edit it?

Bury times article

If you need more news etc please let me know

Thanks

--John Johnson (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE , I HOPE THIS IS ENOUGH TO FIT IN THE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THIS IS ENOUGH OR IF I NEED TO DO MORE EDITS.

--John Johnson (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unsigned act. A couple of trivial mentions in local paper about performing as an Elvis tribute act. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Escape Orbit. Yworo (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all I can to make make this article the best I can and I just keep getting faults. It would be helpful to help me edit the article the right way because when I read the guidelines I cannot understand It.

--John Johnson (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails to display any notability associated with musicians in Wikipedia; indeed, the article even says so ("Stewart is currently not signed to any record deals."). Stewart has a commendable charity fund raising history, but this, in itself is not remarkable - so do thousands and thousands of other young people. The "Early life and education" section is totally unremarkable. The "Career" section contains nothing of note. The only possible item of interest is that he "was originally born in Jamaica": now, if we could establish that he had subsequent births in other places there would certainly be a need for an article, but I suspec this is just careless writing! Emeraude (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article was created and the main contributor by far has been User:Rodgenss, who we must assume is the subject of the article. He is also the John Johnson who has contributed to this AfD. He has made no edits to any other articles. Emeraude (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think that local news articles usually don't show notability and those local sources have sparse content. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fits no criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to delete the article. Im through with wikipedia

--John Johnson (talk) 02:18, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poutrage

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This subject belongs in wikitionary, if anything. It seems to be a Neologism. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, even if a neologism/dictionary entry comes with 95 (I mean it) probably-correct citations, it still doesn't belong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reason I think Poutrage is an interesting word is how specific its usage is to a well-defined group of people. To authenticate that the usage is so skewed was what led me to provide so many references: it was almost impossible to find other usages. As the term Feminazi is to American conservatives, Poutrage appears to belong to American liberals. A word combining "pout" and "outrage" should result in a word used pejoratively by anyone, but that isn't the case here. This word ties closely into the American liberal narrative depicting conservatives as the Party of No, and to the perception by liberals and progressives that the GOP is engaged in purely obstructionist politics. I think it says something important about American polarization in politics and confirmation bias that the term is overwhelmingly used by liberals only. I've structured the article a little differently and added to it to emphasize the political ramifications of the word usage. --Gunnora (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Gunnora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No more than a dicdef. Interestingly, neither "pout" nor "outrage" have Wikipedia articles, for the very simple reason that they are also dicdefs. If I were to come across this word and wanted to know what it meant, I would look in a dictionary and that would be sufficient. The fact that the word seems to be used predominantly by a select group is not special - the same is true of so many words - and does not justify its inclusion. Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:DICDEF of a neologism per Emeraude. This is something for the Urban Dictionary or for Wiktionary, but it is of no value here. There is clearly something wrong with the need to add almost 100 references to such a short article. Nobody (other than an admin trying to get to the bottom of this) is ever going to check so many refs, and it looks very obviously to any mature reader like an attempt by the creator to provide a weak logic for notability. This kind of editing is clearly disruptive to prove a point and is not in line with acceptable editor intentions. For all we know, all these refs may simply document the sum total of the number of times the word has ever been used, and that's not even enough to justify its inclusion in a quality dictionary. The article itself is poutrage as is scraping the search engine barrel and listing every result for it, most of which appear to be blogs or forums..Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Davidson (survivor)

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

Does not pass either the general notability guide or WP:Notability (people). A person does not generally gain notability by being the last of a group to die. LK (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact, he's not even the last one to die after surviving the explosion. Many people were injured during this accident, none of them have an article devoted to them.
Keep Clearly passes the general notability guide by being the subject of multiple detailed and independent works. The reason that these works covered the subject is quite irrelevant - the point is that external authors and editors have found this topic worthy of note and therefore so should we. For example, one of the sources supplied tells us that he was the subject of a National Film Board documentary — "One of the Boys". Warden (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems a pretty clear case of a One Event biography — a child who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and tragically blinded eventually dies. Both more or less random events with no connection other than things that happened to one person. That's essentially a start and finish to a biography — all that is missing is the content. Was this a member of Parliament? The inventor of the toaster-oven? A leading expert on provincial birds? The chief executive of a department store chain? Where's the "notability hook"??? Carrite (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG explains that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity...". So, you don't have to be a chief executive or member of parliament. What matters is whether you are the subject of independent interest. In this case, the person was blind but made a career as a motor mechanic. That seems quite remarkable so, if we needed a hook, there it is. But this is AfD, not DYK. Hooks are not needed for articles, just sources. BLP1E is not especially relevant because the person is dead but, in any case, that would be an argument for merger with the article about the original disaster, not deletion. Warden (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's enough reliable sources that address this historical topic in detail to qualify inclusion in Wikipedia. Also passes WP:BASIC.

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

[31], [32], [33]. There's more paywalled sources that appear to address the topic per the search criterion above [34], [35], [36] and others.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden. By the way, who's the last survivor with injuries? 117Avenue (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. Dream Focus 00:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple sources and notable individual. Notable coverage and interviews with Davidson span several decades. As per above discussions. Scanlan (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halifax Explosion. All you "keepers" seem to overlook WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Aside from surviving the explosion, he has no other claim to notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. As well as the discussion below, this met several of the speedy deletion criteria (eg, Criterion 10 and sort-of Criteria G1 and A1. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Court process Australia

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

Article seems to be written as if author wants to expose something. Wikipedia is not wikileaks, or a blog to write personal opinions and observations on. WP:WIKILEAKS and WP:NOTBLOG Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 04:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unsourced, incoherent pov rant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though note that I have attempted to engage the edtior. Thorncrag 21:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure what it is. Maybe set as a redirect to Law of Australia? --LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 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 University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. The arguments for deletion/redirection significantly outweigh the arguments for retention, not to mention the significant reliable sourcing problems that have been brought up. There may be some instances in which such colleges at some universities may be notable, but this may not be the case here with regards to how this deletion discussion. --MuZemike 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University at Buffalo College of Arts & Sciences

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

Non-Notable university department, fails the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines as no attempt made to demonstrate how is it "especially notable or significant", it is only sourced to department, the COI creator has offered nothing but WP:INHERITED or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasons for it's existence, bringing it here to get as wide as possible input, would not mind to a redirect to University at Buffalo but is an unlikely direct search term. Mt king ^(edits) 04:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect According to the list of programs included in this college, it seems to be most of the degrees a school would offer. This would have some material beneficial to the main article, but probably shouldn't stand on it's own. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 07:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - like its counterparts at other schools (such as my own University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), this is a non-notable administrative sub-unit of the University, without notability of its own. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one at UW Milwaukee may not have its own article, but the one at UW Madison does: University of Wisconsin–Madison College of Letters and Science HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is apparently the only college-level division of that university and has 15,000 students. Its notability under the general notability standards is established by a search of news sources. Even if it were not notable on its own, it is enough material to be split off of the parent article on the university. HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it is notable under WP:GNG can you provide the sources showing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as currently there are none. Mt king ^(edits) 03:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added information from one good article from the NY Times and two books. I would suggest that you do the same rather than trying to delete it. Judging from the talk page of Davidhar [37] it looks like you have been trying for two months to harass a new user any way possible including trying to delete this article instead of trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and its content and encouraging new editors. There is definitely a claim to notability and there are definitely articles in reliable sources to support that claim. Why don't you work with him instead to add some more sourced information? You have to be a little more creative than using an exact quote of the college's full official name when you search.

Also, you may call this "other crap", but there is a whole category of dozens of similar colleges at other universities in the U.S. [38] HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing anyone, the editor has edited in a way to promote the university he and his family have been associated with for over 40 years, he has uploaded copyvio images here and at commons to make the article look better, has been in contact with University Communication about how best to present the university in articles here and to WP:BOOSTER them.

Now to your sources, the NY Times one does not mention the College at all and the book, according to the copy available at Archive.org here is distributed by the University and it's historical society so is not independent. Mt king ^(edits) 08:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This article has enough information from the main article. If this were redirected it would be a mess on the main page and completely lose the elements of this article. There are TONS of universities that have articles that split off various colleges within the universities. Universities are notable. Colleges within a university are part of the university as a whole. For example look at the University of Michigan. What then makes a college notable? Elitism? Almost all the colleges have their own page to feature stuff about the programs and departments. If anything this article is well written. Plus the article has only been around for a month. Within time i'm sure it can be a great article that can provide additional information. This article could feature additional info about the programs or maybe the buildings the college uses to feature history to show additional significance Pwojdacz (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not address the inclusion guidelines issue or the total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mt king ^(edits) 00:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ben Alnwick. --MuZemike 21:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jak Alnwick

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

Footballer still fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 18:47, 22 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 03:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge & Redirect per Dru of Id. AfD deleted this article last year for failing WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. In the time since, this player has played half a dozen games for a team in the English fifth-division, which is not considered fully professional. There are trivial mentions in routine coverage of these games. Still only 18, so I can certainly imagine him achieving notability in future, but he's not there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect- to his older brother Ben Alnwick until WP:NFOOTY is met; would have said to team but on loan status split leaves this the better option. Dru of Id (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sensible merge target for now. Possibly redirect directly to Ben_Alnwick#Personal_life section, to avoid confusion? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. :D Dru of Id (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per Dru of Id. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:36, 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 Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) under CSD A10. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Green uniform

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of olive green uniforms. There is no particular uniform of this type. It's duplicative of the other listed article, and it has almost 0 content. This is not a topic, rather it's a description of many topics, of which there is little use as a search term, or as a redirect target. Shadowjams (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as the other list. --Jayron32 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The scrap of info in this brand-new article is already completely covered in the List of olive green uniforms. If article creator or others have something to add on this topic, I would recommend including within the substantial, existing Military uniform article; and, if there is a significant amount of material to address, initiating a discussion on the talk page there before embarking on major edits. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - please note that List of olive green uniforms is also at AfD... it's no better. Article has no significant content and offers no authority for its claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially no content that is not obvious from the name. JIP | Talk 06:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article has no content to differentiate itself from List of olive green uniforms Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 07:10, 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 Deleted byOrangemike (talk · contribs) under CSD A7. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctium band

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

Article about a band which has, yet, released no albums nor has any other in-depth writing about it in the world outside Wikipedia, at least in terms of reliable, third-party writing. No evidence this subject meets the basic inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:GNG. Jayron32 01:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails utterly on any notability criteria. Dismas|^(talk) 02:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near notability. Maybe one day, but definitely not today. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated through significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They have a Facebook page, a Myspace page, a youtube video (with 260 views), and this WP page (with a link to some Aussie metal site, currently down). What they do not have is any notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteAs previous editor suggested, delete per A7 and call it a day. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 07:11, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of olive green uniforms

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

This is an arbitrary combination of factors: uniforms that are of a particular color. There's nothing to suggest that this grouping has any academic or scholarly interest, or has been the subject of any WP:RS other than trivial mentions or happenstance combinations. Moreover, the article right now is an unwikified list with no context to country or explanation or prose. Shadowjams (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable intersection of facts worth building a list about. The OP says it all. --Jayron32 01:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Apparently the creator copied the text (with the AfD notice btw) to List of Olive Green field uniforms as well (notice the capitalization changes). And then added a picture. Same reasons apply so I don't think it's improper to add it to this nom as well. Shadowjams (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the first contribution of User:Oniuh, an account registered at 01:18, December 23, 2011. The creation of this article at 01:31, December 23, 2011 was their first edit. It was nominated for deletion within five minutes, at 01:36, December 23, 2011‎. Obviously not understanding how the deletion process works, and apparently hoping to be able to continue to develop it this work in progress, our new Wikipedia editor first copied it to Olive Green uniform, which however was quickly speedy deleted, and then copied it to List of Olive Green field uniforms where development has continued – more than a picture has been added. Although a message on the editor's talk page says "First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself", I doubt we'll see much in the way of further contributions by this volunteer. --Lambiam 08:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point, other than thinly veiled soapboxing? Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I observe that the new-page patrolling seems designed with a particular determination in mind to scare new contributors away. While a "List of X-coloured military uniforms" may not be a good idea, nothing in the current process helps the creator to understand what the issue is, and what might perhaps be a better approach. For example, we have an article List of flags by colour, which serves a navigational purpose, and an article List of military uniforms by colour would likewise not seem unreasonable – and then the present article might be a start. And how many valuable articles started by newbies were in good shape, wikified with an appropriate exposition in proper prose of context and such, within five minutes of the creator's very first edit on Wikipedia? Somehow this does not seem the right approach to improving editor retention. --Lambiam 13:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rename List of military uniforms? That would at least get rid of the arbitrary color restriction. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that, although I suspect there's already an article on that subject... any ideas on possible merge targets? I just don't want duplicate parallel lists out there. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced mil-cruft with almost no content, and duplication of the also-unnecessary Olive Green uniform. Existing and more-or-less decent articles on the topic include (sigh) Military camouflage, Disruptive Pattern Material, Military uniform, British Army uniform, List of camouflage patterns, Flecktarn, Leibermuster, need I go on. How many sources are there in all of these? Liking the field and liking reference materials seem to be incompatible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and redundant to List of camouflage patterns. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MuZemike 21:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valerian shiukashvili

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

I originally WP:PRODed this article this morning PST, but the editor removed the prod. I'm nominating for deletion because the subject in the article does not seem to meet our notability guidelines for living people. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The list of awards seems to give reasonable indications to borderline notability. Article text needs work, but the subject seems to meet the bare minimum needed for an article. --Jayron32 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP has scores, perhaps hundreds of piano competitions, so the bar doesn't seem that high, and yet none of the competitions listed in this pianist's resume are to be found here. The subject does not appear to have played with major ensembles or at major venues, does not appear to be represented by an artist management company, does not appear to be a faculty member of a major or indeed any conservatory, and I could find no evidence of recordings, other than the live recordings that can be played on the artist's website, plus a couple of youtube videos. Cited sources and web search results appear to be trivial and/or non-WP:RS, primary, or social media. Fails WP:N. If better sourcing can be found, I will gladly reevaluate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm with Hobbes Goodyear on this one. • Gene93k suggests there are "reasonable indications to borderline notability", but I would say definitely the wrong side of the border.Emeraude (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was User:Jayron32 that said that... Pol430 talk to me 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:Hobbes Goodyear, I think the level of notability is insufficient for a BLP. Pol430 talk to me 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter 5. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Melendez

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

Non-notable fighter, only two fights with notable promotions. Google hits seem to contain only the standard fight records, fight videos and little other coverage. Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter 5, which seems to be subject's main source of notability, such as it is. I don't see the need for a merge, as the subject's contributions to The Ultimate Fighter 5 are covered in much greater depth there. If substantial coverage from independent WP:RS sources can be found on subject's career outside of The Ultimate Fighter 5, then I would want reevaluate my vote. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter 5 I found nothing to show the subject merits his own article. His only notability seems to come from his appearance on TUF5, so redirecting makes the most sense. Jakejr (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged to Opole University. --MuZemike 21:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Environmental Studies

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

university journal of no independent note. No assertion of passing - Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) Youreallycan (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To my opinion, as author, it is a noteworthy academic journal. On a Google test it scores more then 42 thousand hits (keywords: "Economic and Environmental Studies" and Opole). I have to admit that the sourcing is weak and based on 1 source. I think that there are more interesting sources, but I am unable to understand Polish and other East-European languages. As a Polish magazin with a focus on Eastern Europe, it isn't exactly mainstream. Stil it is mentioned 41 times on Google Scholar. To my opinion noteworthy enough to keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge(see comment below), reluctantly. Although it has been around for 11 years, it apparently is still not listed in any major selective database. That it is published in Poland does not mean that sources would necessarily have to be in Polish: it's an academic journal in English, the editorial board is international, and authors are not exclusively Polish. Having said that, even though this is not my field, when I browse through the online issues, I definitely get a feel of a third-tier journal. The 41 references on GScholar mentioned by NotBW above are confirmation of this, for an journal with an 11 year history, this kind of citation record is abysmal. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a good time to make use of the Wikipedia policy of Ignore All Rules, which states: "If a rule [links to: policies and guidelines] prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Juried academic journals are regarded as the epitome of "reliable sources" at Wikipedia. If information in this journal is used to support a fact in a Wikipedia piece, some (although not all) editors will add a link to the publication in the footnotes or references section. In what possible way would it be better to have this showing as a redlink rather linking to even this little stub which informs the questioning user that this is a juried academic journal, published here by those guys there?!? It simply wouldn't. Notability guidelines help us to resolve what subjects are significant and what are not, but they are not perfect. This is a case where the Wikipedia policy should trump the Wikipedia guideline — Wikipedia is stronger with the article than without for a very logical reason. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment in response to this "ignore all rules" keep vote - There are no links to this journal from this project to this journal apart from the single one that is in this article. Your comments about "information in this journal is used to support a fact in a Wikipedia piece" - has no basis in facts at all and actually asserts a lack of notability reflected in its absolute lack of use on the project. Youreallycan (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. No article, no links. No links, no article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please tell me since when the number of wikilinks has been an argument of even limited validity in any AfD? And as far as IAR goes: there's this cute website that I recently made. We call it the Journal of Important Science. I have several friends in faculty positions in several countries that are on the editorial board. We published a few articles and several board members, who are WP editors, have inserted theses as references in several WP articles. Does that now mean that our journal should get a WP article? Not saying something like this scenario is going on here;, just that we're on a sliding slope. As an aside, those 42K GHits reduce to 185 if you take the time to browse to the end of them. If you add "-wikipedia", 133 are left, with "-facebook" we're down to 129. Which ones constitute significant coverage? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs improved but on basis of search Keep. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please post the results of your search that support your keep position. Youreallycan (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Somehow the policy of IAR gets trumped by the (lesser level law) guideline of GNG nine times out of ten at AfD, so in anticipation of the worst I will propose another potentially okay outcome: merger with a redirect to Opole University, which already includes an (empty) section on the journal. Then links to the journal would still get people to the basic information which they are seeking without anyone's love of Rules and Order being offended... Carrite (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and made the merge already. A redirect would be fine with me. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to merge in edit history, if anyone has the skills, that would be good to do, assuming it is possible. I just smushed in the content and tweaked it a little. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a merge is an excellent solution and am kicking myself for not having thought of this myself. Admins can perform history merges, so the closing admin is hereby kindly requested to take care of this if, as i hope, merge is going to be the outcome here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a merge. Youreallycan (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have acquaintances on all three sides of the aisle, and have but little to offer argument-wise here. I have a tendency to trust Guillaume's judgment in these matters and barring any further evidence will support their merge arguments. I'll be happy to carry out the history merge when it comes to that (although it's time that Guillaume gets a mop so he can do it himself). I found no further evidence to establish notability. A Google Book search reveals no citations for articles from the journals, but that search is made more difficult given the generality of the phrase and I didn't go through more than four or five pages. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Content has already been merged, redirect to Opole University. Pol430 talk to me 17:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would regret a merge, but not reject, mainly because of the lack of articles about science in Eastern Europe. The existing rules are based on science in the USA and, I guess unwillingly, provide a different threshold between the Western World and the rest of the world. It would be nice if someone could take a look at that, but for the moment I have to accept things as they be. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Menashe Lustig

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

Comedian, no evidence of notability. In response to a BLP-PROD, the only references added were from Youtube, and the creator asserts only existence and his personal appreciation. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article states "comedian", "writer", "actor". Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and there are no sources to his writings, any awards, anything being published, etc. Just another act. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the person who prodded it, I agree with the other statements. It's just another person who has a youtube channel who thinks he's funny. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So many videos, so few reliable sources providing evidence of notability. I can't seem to find any substantial coverage of this individual. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. --Axel™ (talk) 17:41, 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.