Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 December	26 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Education Service

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

Zero refs. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for notability since April. Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The only online mentions seem to be user reviews, blogs or commercial listings. Sionk (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing useful from WP:RS sources. Search results are almost entirely business directory listings, such as this one indicating that this college placement service has between a dozen and and two dozen employees, so it seems unlikely that we are overlooking useful references. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Giovanni Vigevano

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

Unimportant, lack of sources, perhaps merge with Giovanni Vigevano Whenaxis (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that there is a lack of sources - two sources are included. And as an early work by one of foremost sculptor of art history, it's hardly unimportant. It's much better for the sculpture to have an independent entry, where its image can be shown, rather than being merged, and therefore lost, in the much larger Bernini entry. Xcia0069 (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Whenaxis (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Whenaxis (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the hundreds of reliable sources found here, taking the subject way over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those sources are for the main article here: Gian Lorenzo Bernini, not the article in question here: Bust of Giovanni Vigevano. I realize that Gian Lorenzo Bernini a.k.a. "Giovanni Vigevano" is important, but I'm not sure that a seperate article of the Bust of Giovanni Vigevano is important; WP:MERGE. Whenaxis (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernini was the artist; Vigevano was the subject. They were not the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable sculpture. It seems to me that the nominator hasn't been as thorough in his research as possible before deciding to nominate the article for deletion. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator's rationale that there's a lack of sources about the article's subject is not correct. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Antonio Carbonell

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

no indication of WP:notability. References given confirm he exists and belongs to various society but nothing more than directory listings. I cannot find anything to show the "Luis Razetti" award is notable. Very few google hits when adding cardiologist or cardiology to his name to exclude other people. noq (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Whenaxis (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) He is a doctor, belongs to societies, and does good work in the community; commendable, but not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. 2) I could find no publications at all at Google Scholar, although that may be misleading since the search may have been limited to articles in English; still, no evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC. 3) He has no article at the Spanish Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MelanieN. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:58, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatiks

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

No third-party reliable sources are discussing this software. Asserts significance but no evidence of notability. Contested PROD. NellieBly (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources to esablish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional, fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:00, 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 redirect to Danko Jones. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Calabrese

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

No assertion of notability outside of the band; sole reference given only mentions "JC", not "John Calabrese", so it's unsourced for now per WP:BLP; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, only brief mentions that he's in the band. Earlier attempt at redirection reverted by article's creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. An article simply stating that he is a member of the band is pretty pointless.--Michig (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and protect) to the band. fails WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shafiq

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

This is a reformatted version of a request made by User:Betterlife2011, which read "Lt Gen(R) Mohammad Shafiq wants to remove this article immediate effect. And he doesnt permit any publication about his personal or professional life." - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WMF legal counsel Geoff Bingham has since established that, to his knowledge, there is no legal reason why we have to uphold this request for deletion even if we believe the user is an authorised agent of the subject (or indeed the subject himself). As noted by others on WT:MILHIST, the notability of the subject is not in question, and the article does not seem to fail WP:BLP. Therefore, as I see it, it is in the interests of the encyclopedia to retain this article. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:SOLDIER & WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General, provincial governor and ambassador. Of course he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG as a former provincial governor. EricSerge (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep high-ranking military person and is a former ambassador. Don't know how this is non-notable. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:15, 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 redirect to Palo Alto, California#School system. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keys School

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Palo Alto, California#School system where it is already listed, per standard procedure for non notable primary and middle schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 26 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) 04:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for typical elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kudpung and common outcome AFD precedent for elementary schools. Edison (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: K-8 schools are in a gots-to-go situation Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anaheim, California#Education. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Lutheran School, Anaheim California

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable schools with student bodies between kindergarten and 8th grade. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[statement redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: This is a deletion discussion. There have been no proposals on the article talk page for a for a merge. AfD debates may be correctly closed as keep, delete, redirect, merge, or no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Anaheim, California; subject not independently notable as it does not meet standards set forth in WP:GNG & WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A "Redirect" vote is in effect a vote for deletion, with the remaining page name converted into a simple redirect page pointing to some logical target (e.g. city or school district). Carrite (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect' is an official closure result. Nothing is deleted, but the content is blanked and replaced with the redirect templates. The history remains intact. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Irvine Unified School District. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Vista School

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones, and has zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irvine Unified School District per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irvine Unified School District per Carrite. A search for reliable sources only shows routine coverage and passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irvine Unified School District per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion (mainly sourcing concerns) outweigh the arguments for retention given, and the rough consensus leans toward deletion. --MuZemike 02:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ShayTards

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

ShayTards is not notable except that it is "very popular" on youtube. Shay Butler (ShayCarl) himself may be notable as he helped develop the Maker Stuidos production company and has himself been in multiple financial magazine articles due to his success, but his ShayTards channel itslef is not notable and this article is not a replacement for Shay Carl's article. Sources only confirm random stats in the article but do not show why these stats are notable. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / ref review All but three of the references can be immediately discounted regarding wp:notability. YouTube pages, their own website etc. Of the remaining 3, 2 I think make no mention of them, and the third (Forbes article) would count towards wp:notability.North8000 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shay Butler is notable,[1] move to that if necessary.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the existence of this from 2009 should be noted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaycarl, which I felt was a no consensus situation but was closed as delete. I saw that the ShayTards article popped up later on, among other iterations about ShayCarl, I believe, no matter how many times someone tries to delete them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem has always been notability. When the Shay Carl article was deleted many times over, he was not notable at the time. In the past years, he has gained notability (at least in my eyes). My concern is that this article is attempting to be a gateway for Shay's notability when the "show" itself has none. I absolutely agree that the ShayCarl article should be the place to put this information, and even have a section about his SHAYTARDS channel. But to do that, you will need to create an Article for Creation article and build it up to show that Shay Butler does indeed have the notability to have ShayCarl reinstated. I'm for that process 100%. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 06:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think some of the problem is that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based upon old media concepts. The Shaytards channel on YouTube just crossed 1 million subscribers. That's more people than view most television shows. But somehow, shows like this are ignored by the old media outlets that we rely upon to write articles about these people. It doesn't mean that they aren't notable. It just makes it harder to write an article. If you have to get rid of the article to follow the rules, I agree with the comments above about Shay Butler being a better fit, but ultimately they are both very well known. Illinois2011 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NN web content about WP:NN individual. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaycarl. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to clarify that where I agree the web content is not notable, the deletion discussion you reference regarding the individual is over 2 years old. It is my opinion that Shaycarl (Shay Butler) has obtained notability in that time. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it may certainly be a popular web series, but unfortunately, without secondary reliable sources it is impossible to write an encyclopedic article on the subject. I could find none. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Shay Butler. I'm not sure why this is a deletion discussion instead of a move discussion. Even the nominator doesn't seem to be arguing it should be deleted; just that ShayTards is a worse name than Shay Butler. --Qwerty0 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not necessarily. This article is, in fact, about the ShayTards and not Shay Butler, specifically. Shay Butler is just the creator of the webseries ShayTards. If this article is in fact moved to Shay Butler, the entire article would have to change (and not really easily), that's why it's not a question of Move, but this article should just be deleted and a new article about ShayButler should be created if there exists enough reliable and secondary sources to warrant it--perhaps in the Articles-for-Creation area--and have it approved before creation (due to the mass times ShayCarl, Shaycarl, Shay Carl, Shay carl, Shay Butler, etc etc, have been deleted). There is clearly not enough sources in this article right now to warrant a move. The information here does not show notability for ShayTards or Shay Butler. This discussion is about the deletion of this article. I just go on tangents sometimes. The Shay Butler article has the potential to become an article since I believe he has notability now, but I just don't have the sources to make one. And this article does not have them.~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit of form over substance, you could probably rework this article into a 3 sentence stub about Shay Butler and move the article in the time it took you to compose that comment. :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

internet killed television is less popular than shaytards and that's on74.34.105.58 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about merging can continue outside of AFD on the appropriate talk pages. --MuZemike 02:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodied But Unbowed (HR report on Bahrain)

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

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is notable. Reliable sources: HSRP: Bloodied but Unbowed: Unwarranted State Violence Against Bahraini Protesters, UNHCR: Bahrain: Bloodied but unbowed: Unwarranted state violence against Bahraini protesters, M&C: Amnesty International criticises Bahrain over "excessive force". Will search for more if needed. Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep There are three qualifying third-party sources at least, if you don't count the hosting of the original text by other organizations. Since the topic is ongoing maybe deletion should wait until more sources indicating the notability of the report can be found. Or consider merging into the Bahraini uprising's article section "Coverage by human rights organizations" to replace the links with prose. If the article stays its prose should be rewritten to emphasize the notability of the report not the uprisings, ie what role does/did the report play in different cultural fields. Galadrist (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, and I suggest using this as a source for an article on the 2011 Bahrain uprising rather than making this source itself the subject of an article There is a trio of articles with the same story. The subject of the reports is notable, but there is little or no indication of wp:notability for the report. Sources given in comments are generally the author of the report itself, or just condensations of or listings of the report. The content of the article is a presentation of the assertions of the report rather than being about the report. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An EIGHT page report. Can't see this as notable. Above alternatives to deletion do have merit, so maybe userfy or merge into Bahraini Uprising. BTW isn't "Uprising" POV? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firm Keep. Other than when challenged on a specific point with contradictory evidence adduced, Amnesty is a reliable source. It is hard to envisage how an Amnesty publication dealing with a specific national-level situation would not be notable and there are third party references -

Linked directly by Refworld at UNHCR - http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,BHR,,,130.html

CNN iReport - http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-575161

The Public Record - http://pubrecord.org/world/9087/obama-saudi-arabia-bahrain/

JafariyaNews.com - http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k11_news/march/24brutalities_against_bahrainies.htm

Linked directly at IFEX - http://www.ifex.org/bahrain/2011/03/23/raids_detentions/

However those references should not be essential to the retention of the article because a primary source may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Common sense and even enshrined in WP policy - WP:Primary source.Opbeith (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but we are not talking about whether Amnesty is a reliable source. We are talking about whether an eight page Amnesty report is sufficiently notable to be the subject of an idependent article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We live in a world in which human rights abuses compete with one another for attention on an almost Darwinian basis. Understandably, given the level of competition for its official attention as one of the small group of organisations operating at the highest level of human rights campaigning, Amnesty is not in the business of publishing ephemeral trivialities, whatever the number of pages. Opbeith (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that neither the report nor the issue is trivial. I am sorry if I gave this impression. I do think that what he have here is a useful source, but not a good topic for an article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the Great Wikipedia Philosophical Faultline here, Tigerboy1966. I know that my perception of Wikipedia isn't universally shared. As far as I'm concerned the value and justification of Wikipedia as a collaborative enterprise is that it serves as a place where information on any subject of interest can be shared directly (defining "subject of interest" broadly as a subject of interest to anyone other than the individual who has created the article and which is not inaccurate, misleading or exploitative for purposes of purely private or partisan gain). I know that other people have a more rigorous notion of what Wikipedia should be. The filter of "notability" is a compromise aimed at resolving that fundamental conflict by providing a baseline "quality control" mechanism aimed at excluding abuse. When the bar is raised and notability requirements are applied more strictly than is necessary to exclude abuse, then something different is happening. I disagree with the idea of "tweaking" notability as a mechanism for "quality improvement" based on essentially subjective criteria of what an encyclopaedia should be and what should qualify for inclusion. This report is significant to people interested in the Bahraini Uprising itself; it's also significant to people interested in human rights issues generally for whom Bahrain is an important example of how the substance of respect for human rights is determined at the interface of principle and pragmatism. For me, that's enough for it to be a "good" topic. So we disagree, but in present circumstances that doesn't matter. What does matter is that (as I see it, of course) the baseline notability requirement for the topic seems to have been satisfied.

To go back to your previous comment concerning use of the term "2011 Bahrain Uprising" as indicating the expression of a point of view/POV and hence presumably relevant to this discussion. I presume that the element that you object to is the use of the word "Uprising". The substance of the event is consistent with the Wikipedia definition of an uprising, so if someone as authoritative as Frank Gardner is happy to use the term in relation to the events in Bahrain this year[2], I see no solid reason why Wikipedia shouldn't. Opbeith (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding in such a thoughtful and detailed way. I sort of see your point, but I don't think that every "subject of interest" needs a separate article. Wikipedia has other ways of making information available. As for "uprising", I don't much like it, but the usage seems to be established by precedent, and I can't think of an appropriate alternative.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firm delete. Current events are reported and commented upon by a number of bodies, institutions and organisations, Amnesty and HRW being just two among them. Whilst this is not to diminish the content of their reports, please let it be kept in mind that these are no more than reports on current political events. The fact that Amnesty International is a familiar name - more for generating publicity than for the quality of their reporting (and I am saying it as a human rights professional!) - does not merit every report signed by Amnesty to have a separate article devoted to it (unless you really need a place to discuss its contents critically). Here I disagree with Opbeith: Wikipedia is not to replace Google or the Internet. Anyone wishing to read a particular report will find it at the source, there is hardly any need to reword all these articles for Wikipedia (which will not be the first search result returned anyway). What is key for me, a report per se - as any news article or analysis of current events - should only be regarded as just one more opinion on these events; it has no meaning outside the context of the political development. Hence, I strongly suggest that the report in question (which is more of a publicity article) is definitely mentioned in the 2011 Bahraini uprising article. However, let's keep this report where it belongs: a point of view (backed by some first-hand experience) on these events. kashmiri (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The report, like any document, has meaning/significance beyond its simple content that as you indicate has to do with the relationship to its context - its issue and its impact, and, again as you indicate, any critical discussion reported. Your criticism of the article is justified insofar as the content of the article (and the others discussed here with it) still needs expansion by the author to reflect this. I have had my own tangles with Amnesty but your suggestion that the defects in reporting and other inconsistencies, which I acknowledged, make Amnesty more notable for publicity generation than for the substance of its reporting seems a little extreme.Opbeith (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to underestimate Amnesty's role in generating awareness on current-day events. My intention was only to indicate that reports and analyses by professional political analysts (usually affiliated with large think-tanks) tend to be of distinctly higher quality. Human rights reporting, especially in Amnesty's edition, seems to focus on denouncing what actually is only a (more or less natural) outcome of certain historical, ethnic, political, cultural, etc., conditions; it does not see the bigger context at all. Moreover, and unfortunately, it mostly focuses on not what the people affected consider as most oppressive in their everyday lives (e.g., persisting threat of violence, highhandedness of civil administration, forced labour) but on what generates most publicity in the West (lack of democracy, freedom of speech, persecution of 'human rights defenders', a "bad president", etc.). I have been involved, at one point, both in human rights reporting and in analysing its impact - and can't really say these reports contain much of reliable information. Not at all. kashmiri (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A smile to Bahraini Activist: English language has some capitalisation rules, it would be nice if they are respected at creation of new articles.kashmiri (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three Arab Spring countries at "uprising" status (meaning government seriously challenged and destabilised by protests but not yet replaced by transition government), Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, i get the impression that the amount of documentation by human rights organisations - both local and international - is a lot more detailed in Bahrain than in the other two. In that sense, an article like 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain may be justified as covering a notable topic in itself, and in any case, is likely to be justified as a WP:SPLIT off the main article. The main article is already huge, and International reactions to the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising, with a brief section on NGO reactions, is also huge. So IMHO a split is justified. Six separate articles are not justified. After writing the merged article and giving it some time to settle, it should become possible to see if the article can stand on its own or if it would be better compressed and merged into the already huge main Bahrain article. Boud (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri, English is not my first language, so if you see any mistakes, you may edit them out ;) Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is mine ;) But article names cannot be edited - hence my humble request.kashmiri (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the six NGO Bahrain 2011 human rights reports, all of which are under AfD, into a single article something like 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain. A link to the governmental commission and its report should go in the article. Removing the redundant background and see also sections of the individual articles will reduce the overall length of the combined article. The six AfD links are:
1. local,
2. HRWF,
3. Amnesty,
4. ICG,
5. HRW,
6. Physicians
Boud (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A thoughtful and constructive suggestion. Though my own preference is still for retention of individual articles (covering context as well as content), a general article could also give a broader perspective. It would be helpful to have the author's thoughts. Opbeith (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Merge as a good compensatory idea. I think there are 2 more ICG reports and 2 more HRWF reports as well, but I stopped working on that since this issue was raised. There is also one more local report by Al Wefaq to be published. Also there is the Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain, which according to these articles [3], [4], [5], [6] should have reached a conclusion, but I couldn't find it anywhere. If it's not too much, I asked you (Boud) to take a look at that topic as well as give your opinion about it. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about merging can continue outside of AFD on the appropriate talk pages. --MuZemike 02:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human Price of Freedom and Justice

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

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is notable. Reliable sources: ABNA: Bahrain: Human Price of Freedom and Justice, The Crooked Bough: Bahrain: Human Price of Freedom and Justice, IFEX: BCHR releases report on the price of freedom and social justice, POMED: Bahrain NGOs Release Joint Human Rights Report. Will search for more if needed. Bahraini Activist (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, and I suggest using this as a source for an article on the 2011 Bahrain uprising rather than making this source itself the subject of an article There is a trio of articles with the same story. The subject of the reports is notable, but there is little or no indication of wp:notability for the report. Sources given in comments are generally the author of the report itself, or just condensations of or listings of the report. The content of the article is a presentation of the assertions of the report rather than being about the report. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging the key points from this article into the 2011 Bahraini uprising article as suggested by North8000. kashmiri (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the six NGO Bahrain 2011 human rights reports, all of which are under AfD, into a single article something like 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain. A link to the governmental commission and its report should go in the article. Removing the redundant background and see also sections of the individual articles will reduce the overall length of the combined article. The six AfD links are:
1. local,
2. HRWF,
3. Amnesty,
4. ICG,
5. HRW,
6. Physicians
Boud (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Merge as a good compensatory idea. I think there are 2 more ICG reports and 2 more HRWF reports as well, but I stopped working on that since this issue was raised. There is also one more local report by Al Wefaq to be published. Also there is the Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain, which according to these articles [7], [8], [9], [10] should have reached a conclusion, but I couldn't find it anywhere. If it's not too much, I asked you (Boud) to take a look at that topic as well as give your opinion about it. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:58, 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 no consensus. Discussion about merging can continue outside of AFD on the appropriate talk pages. --MuZemike 02:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICG report on the 2011 Bahrain revolt

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

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is notable. Reliable sources: Election Guide Digest: Popular Protests in North Africa and the Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, ISN: Popular Protests in North Africa and The Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, UNHCR: Popular Protests in North Africa and the Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, HSRP: Popular Protests in North Africa and the Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, Saudi Wave: Crisis Group: popular protests in North Africa and the Middle East.

~~Delete~~ See updated comment a few lines down. The article topic is the report, not the subject of the report. Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Looks like a self-presentation of the report rather than an article about the report. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is about the report itself. You can look at the reliable sources above to check for notability, if found notable enough the article can be edited to include them to show notability. Bahraini Activist (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, and I suggest using this as a source for an article on the 2011 Bahrain uprising rather than making this source itself the subject of an article There is a trio of articles with the same story. The subject of the reports is notable, but there is little or no indication of wp:notability for the report. Sources given in comments are generally the author of the report itself, or just condensations of or listings of the report. The content of the article is a presentation of the assertions of the report rather than being about the report. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ICG, as nearly all think-tanks and thousands of other organisations in the world, regularly publish country reports . IMHO, it makes very little sense to include and describe all of them on Wikipedia. I see no justification that each and every report on every country in the world ever published by ICG and similar organisations should have each a separate article on Wikipedia, despite their perhaps strong emotional value for certain parties to the events. Maybe a summary article listing selected international reports by country would not be bad - but certainly not articles on individual reports (and with such a confusing name). kashmiri (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the six NGO Bahrain 2011 human rights reports, all of which are under AfD, into a single article something like 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain. A link to the governmental commission and its report should go in the article. Removing the redundant background and see also sections of the individual articles will reduce the overall length of the combined article. The six AfD links are:
1. local,
2. HRWF,
3. Amnesty,
4. ICG,
5. HRW,
6. Physicians
Boud (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Merge as a good compensatory idea. I think there are 2 more ICG reports and 2 more HRWF reports as well, but I stopped working on that since this issue was raised. There is also one more local report by Al Wefaq to be published. Also there is the Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain, which according to these articles [11], [12], [13], [14] should have reached a conclusion, but I couldn't find it anywhere. If it's not too much, I asked you (Boud) to take a look at that topic as well as give your opinion about it. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about merging can continue outside of AFD on the appropriate talk pages. --MuZemike 03:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do No Harm (HR report on Bahrain)

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

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is notable. Reliable sources: AFP: Human rights group blasts 'systematic attacks' on Bahraini medics, JAMA: Human Rights Report Details Violence Against Health Care Workers in Bahrain, Democracy Now: Physicians Urge Obama Admin to Pressure Mideast Ally Bahrain to End Repression of Doctors, Patients, HSRP: Do No Harm: A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic Attacks on Doctors and Patients, Zunia: Do No Harm : A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic Attacks on Doctors and Patients, BCHR:PHR’s Report: Do No Harm: A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic Attacks on Doctors and Patients. Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, and I suggest using this as a source for an article on the 2011 Bahrain uprising rather than making this source itself the subject of an article There is a trio of articles with the same story. The subject of the reports is notable, but there is little or no indication of wp:notability for the report. Sources given in comments are generally the author of the report itself, or just condensations of or listings of the report. The content of the article is a presentation of the assertions of the report rather than being about the report. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the six NGO Bahrain 2011 human rights reports, all of which are under AfD, into a single article something like 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain. A link to the governmental commission and its report should go in the article. Removing the redundant background and see also sections of the individual articles will reduce the overall length of the combined article. The six AfD links are:
1. local,
2. HRWF,
3. Amnesty,
4. ICG,
5. HRW,
6. Physicians
Boud (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Merge as a good compensatory idea. I think there are 2 more ICG reports and 2 more HRWF reports as well, but I stopped working on that since this issue was raised. There is also one more local report by Al Wefaq to be published. Also there is the Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain, which according to these articles [15], [16], [17], [18] should have reached a conclusion, but I couldn't find it anywhere. If it's not too much, I asked you (Boud) to take a look at that topic as well as give your opinion about it. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about merging can continue outside of AFD on the appropriate talk pages. --MuZemike 03:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Future for Bahrain

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

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found: Religion and Law Consortium: HRWF Report: Which Future for Bahrain?, Strasbourg Consortium: HRWF Report: Which Future for Bahrain?. Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, and I suggest using this as a source for an article on the 2011 Bahrain uprising rather than making this source itself the subject of an article There is a trio of articles with the same story. The subject of the reports is notable, but there is little or no indication of wp:notability for the report. Sources given in comments are generally the author of the report itself, or just condensations of or listings of the report. The content of the article is a presentation of the assertions of the report rather than being about the report. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging the key points from this article into the 2011 Bahraini uprising article as suggested by North8000. kashmiri (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the six NGO Bahrain 2011 human rights reports, all of which are under AfD, into a single article something like 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain. A link to the governmental commission and its report should go in the article. Removing the redundant background and see also sections of the individual articles will reduce the overall length of the combined article. The six AfD links are:
1. local,
2. HRWF,
3. Amnesty,
4. ICG,
5. HRW,
6. Physicians
Boud (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Merge as a good compensatory idea. I think there are 2 more ICG reports and 2 more HRWF reports as well, but I stopped working on that since this issue was raised. There is also one more local report by Al Wefaq to be published. Also there is the Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain, which according to these articles [19], [20], [21], [22] should have reached a conclusion, but I couldn't find it anywhere. If it's not too much, I asked you (Boud) to take a look at that topic as well as give your opinion about it. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3'-Cluster

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

This article, along with in vivo selection of an entire exon and exinct, seems to be intended solely to promote the research done by the team of some N.N. Singh. It thus contains only original research of little interest to the general public, besides not fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria of notability. kashmiri (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Seems to be promotional. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Reference is not an independent third party peer review. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exinct

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

This article, along with in vivo selection of an entire exon and 3'-Cluster, seems to be intended solely to promote the research done by the team of some N.N. Singh. It thus contains only original research of little interest to the general public, besides not fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria of notability. kashmiri (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Seems to be promotional. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only independent source is trivial. Notability not established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. References are not an independent third party peer reviews. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:05, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In vivo selection of an entire exon

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

This article, along with exinct and 3'-Cluster, seems to be intended solely to promote the research done by the team of some N.N. Singh. It thus contains only original research of little interest to the general public, besides not fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria of notability. kashmiri (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Seems to be promotional. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. No independent sources. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief description of a research technique; not encyclopedic. I tried in vain to think of an appropriate redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top gear india special

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

Fails WP:NOT Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 11:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see an individual episode of Top Gear being notable enough for an article, besides this is written poorly and wanders off topic. The special can be certainly be mentioned in other articles about the series, hopefully accompanied by references. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for an article on an individual episode. Truthsort (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This programme has several specials, many of which have articles (Top Gear: Botswana Special, Top Gear: Vietnam Special, etc). Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tricky one. As it stands it looks like a delete. But in 72 hours it will probably be a viable topic, so deletion at this stage would seem a bit pointless. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed with Lugnuts and Tigerboy1966. The article was created prematurely but isn't doing any harm and will hopefully be viable shortly. I get the impression the two people saying "Delete" are unaware of the other articles, or even Top Gear Race to the North which is based on a single feature. However, it is noticeable that the Middle East Special does not have its own article. Halsteadk (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This isn't an ordinary TopGear episode, it is one of the Christmas specials. So far, all of the other Christmas specials have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.205.144 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it significantly. I may be able to tweak it further tommorow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.205.144 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rewrite: The other specials have pages about them, and so this one should have as well. It's dismally written, though, and needs a major overhaul. Torak (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Most of the other specials have articles. sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 20:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite. Agree with Lugnuts and others with similar opinions. If other Specials have their pages (except Middle East Special), I don't see any problem then. However, it should be rewritten/revamped. trunks_ishida (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs significant levels of rewriting to bring it up to a viable standard, but the existence of a specific page for the special episode is consistent with other special episodes of the show. --Tailkinker (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned before needs rewrite, I agree with Tailkinker "the existence of a specific page for the special episode is consistent with other special episodes of the show"IDionz (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a) It's a special. b) It was as long in duration as many full length movies. c) You'll never get enough momentum for deletion. End of discussion. MrCrackers (talk) 04:25, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of current champions in WWE

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

Same as History of WWE; All the information from this article is located in WWE. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 10:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination, change of mind. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 10:09, 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 speedy delete per G11 by Fastily. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Liravongsa

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

Contested prod about a futures trader and his company. No evidence that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Relatively few ghits for "Liravongsa -wikipedia", many of them irrelevant. Only one reference, subscriber-only. His claim to notability seems to rest on that of his company, but the company's notability isn't established (e.g. is "the first proprietary Ichimoku automated trading system" notable?) and anyway notability isn't inherited. Given the name of the article's author, closely similar to that of the company, I suspect a major conflict of interest andy (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom, this reads as a self-authored puff-piece with no evidence of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person has posted actual original source code that is of value. I know because that's how I found this article thread. I suggest keeping this article as there may be other original coding contributions if this article is available as a median. In addition to this, it reads unbiased in my opinion, with little talk of his company. Also the WSJ did refernce his name directly as a fund manager. So, I don't understand the prod or puff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.169.43 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — 99.24.169.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately "it's useful" isn't sufficient here; we need actual evidence of notability, such as magazine articles that discuss Liravongsa (and perhaps his algorithms too, but again, an article on the code wouldn't be enough to save this article as notability cannot be "inherited" from a product to a person). If you know of such sources that we can quote, list them here and we can update the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 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, Kurykh (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notabiity. Most of the content is accolades/promotional rather than coverage. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 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 keep. --MuZemike 03:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of gaming articles

Impossibly huge scope; every article related to "games". This article is not even the slightest fraction complete, and it never will be. There are board games, video games, midway games, people, companies, genres, but only the tiniest representative slice. When it was created on 28 December 2002‎, maybe they were able to list every article, but now we'd have a huge page if we just list every other list. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer any information that might be useful to a more specific list and Delete. John Daker (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can this be turned from a list-of-lists into a list-of-lists-of-lists? Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split into a list of lists (by major subcategories of Category:Games), obviously. Just deleting this would make no sense at all, since it would necessarily be re-created if the Category:Indexes of articles continues to grow and become all-inclusive. (That is a meaning-laden "if", too. I wouldn't mind seeing the entire thing and its contents disappear, other than its subcategory Category:Outlines, the contents of which serve a real purpose; most of rest of that stuff just duplicates the functionality of categories. But if we're going to keep them, don't discriminate arbitrarily against the games category.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC) PS: The fastest way to get started would be to rename this Index of gaming topics ("gaming" per Category:Gaming, as Category:Games is for individual games, not the topic of games and gaming a a whole; and "topics" since it will list higher-level topics, not individual articles in most cases). Next fork off an Index of video game topics; about 2/3 of the content would go in there, move them into, respectively, Category:Indexes of gaming topics and Category:Indexes of video game topics (named per Category:Video games not gaming), which already have other categorized articles. Then subdivide further by major topic areas of Category:Gaming and Category:Video games, some of which already exist as "Index of..."/"List of..." articles. Anything more properly a sport than a game should go in Index of sports topics and Category:Indexes of sports topics, based on subcats of Category:Sports. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article moved to Index of gaming topics in process of editing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this form as unmanageably broad. No objection against a complete rewrite/recreation as an index of indices. Sandstein 12:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate so as to give SMcClandlish time to carry out the revamp that he proposes. There's no reason to keep this material in the mainspace while he does it.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there are lots of gaming topics is a reason to have a substantial index, not a reason to delete it. If it seems to need improvement then this is a reason for ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. The article should not be moved from mainspace because that is the usual place for us to work upon substantial articles in a collaborative way. Assigning the topic to a particular editor or project would be contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, Colonel, that the name of this list has already changed during the course of this AfD and the proposal is to completely rewrite the content pretty much from scratch. What we're proposing to keep has a different name and different content from the material that JohnnyMrNinja proposed for deletion. That's not really a "keep" outcome except in a highly technical sense, is it? The purpose of incubating it isn't to "assign" the project to SMcClandlish (and if that was what was wanted then we would userfy it to him instead), but to put it into a collaborative workspace where SMcClandlish can take the lead in doing as he suggests, because clearly he's the man with the detailed plan for what to do.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace is our collaborative workspace and that is the essential feature of wikipedia. The move to a new title is not settled as we have had little participation here as yet. This article has existed for 9 years and has been edited by multiple experienced editors in that time. It is presumptious for one editor to suppose that they now control its destiny. Warden (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This list article is discriminate and exclusive to articles about gaming. It serves to functionally and usefully serve as an index for various Wikipedia articles, and assists users in browsing and navigating topics on Wikipedia. Compare this to having to utilize the search engine and sort through all of the results, which would be more burdensome to users. Overall, this article improves the Wikipedia project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is discriminate, and length or incompleteness is never a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 08:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – no scope is impossible for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is the prime example, because its scope is all-encompassing! So, an index of all gaming articles is an appropriate goal to accommodate navigation through the ocean of gaming subjects covered on Wikipedia. Nominator exhibits all or nothing reasoning. The fallacy that it's not beneficial unless it is complete is a very dangerous one. In its worst application, it implies that only finished articles can be posted on Wikipedia. But, Wikipedia is a wiki: a collaborative editing environment designed to allow many editors to work together to create documents. If you disallow works-in-progress, then you defeat the whole purpose of the wiki. Wikipedia's goal is long-term. It costs us nothing to allow incomplete articles to wait for volunteers to come along and work on them (that's the central M.O. of a wiki). Something else that the nominator missed was that technology accelerates. The human genome project is an example of such acceleration. They took almost 10 years to sequence about 10% of the human genome, so experts were projecting that it would take 100 years to sequence the whole thing. Three years later it was within a few percent of being complete. What happened? Innovation happened. The same type of thing is likely to occur with respect to Wikipedia's knowledge indexes. Eventually, someone will figure out a way to do it faster. The mathematics department is already experimenting with automated indexing approaches, as they maintain a comprehensive collection of math lists. The nomination to delete this page is near-sighted in the extreme. Please vote it down by voting Keep. Thank you. Sincerely, – The Transhumanist 19:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't responding here but since you've brought up my "reasoning", I feel obligated. The logic used to debate the logic that I didn't use is flawed. This is an index, not a list, not a category. This is entirely self-referential, this is an index. The harm is quite clear, in that an index by its nature lists all things within a certain grouping. A "list of gaming topics" or some-such would be a list of all things that fit in that grouping in the world, and would never be complete. Lists don't need to be complete. An index, however, is Wikipedia telling readers that this is what we have on this topic. We are talking about the contents of Wikipedia, not the world at large, so it damn-well better be complete, or at least attempt to be complete. Otherwise it is wrongly labeled. If you want to rename it "list of whatever", feel free to suggest that. If we make it an index of lists, great. But don't pretend that we can call this an index of all game articles with a few hundred links, while WP:VG alone links to at least 50,000 articles (not to mention board games, RPGs, etc.). That is like making an article about all the people in the world that have ever swam, or an index of every article related to a person born after Shakespeare. There is no benefit to such an indiscriminate grouping, unless it encompasses more discriminate ones. To put it simply, there is no way this index could or should ever be completed, as an article that lists hundreds of thousands of other articles is completely useless to everyone. If this index were complete, it should still be deleted, as a giant mass of marginally-related words with no context and no value to anyone that has or will ever use the internet. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that this article has been renamed to Index of gaming articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anyone who thinks this list is discriminate isn't aware of how big a field games are. It could be broken down into meaningful lists, but "everything ever related to games" is way to broad to be useful. Kuguar03 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't want to get involved in this discussion myself, but I would like to point out how enormous the scope for this list could potentially be so, in the very least, I'd hope that this would be split up. DarthBotto_talk•cont 10:21, 03 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. apparent agreeement that there is sufficient sourcing for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vimla patil

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

Despite huge blocks of unformatted text, there really isn't much here which explains what makes her notable. There are also few sources, and nothing inline, and this is a BLP, so it needs a complete rewrite if kept. I have concerns about the provenance of the image, as well. If the uploader (who wrote this article) is the copyright holder of the image, then they also have a conflict of interest. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The text is now formatted and paragraphed for easy reading.

COMMENT: What makes Vimla Patil notable? 1. She is the first woman journalist of India to achieve international success and to brand Femina, a Times of India publication, as one of the most popular and highest selling women's magazines.She edited Femina for 20 years, the longest career for an editor in India. 2.She made an awesome contribution to the promotion of equality and empowerment for millions of Indian women through education and economic self reliance by promoting improved laws. She promoted this empowerment through the Print media as well as Multimedia. 3.With the support of Indira Gandhi and the Indian Government, she promoted Indian textiles and garments internationally and popularized Indian hand-looms throughout the world, 4. She built the brand of Miss India and brought glory to the beautiful women of India. Many winners like Aishwarya Rai and Priyanka Chopra are now making headlines throughout the world.

COMMENT: The image is provided by Vimla Patil herself, hence there is no issue of copyright.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.177.19 (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT : Objections to this site are unfounded for the following reason/s - a cursory search via any reputable internet engine will produce a significant level of documentary proof required in terms of scope and breadth of achievements required for this individual's inclusion. A more formal library based literature search will confirm the huge body of work spanning several topics including but not limited to food/cuisine (politics, fashion, and most importantly women's emancipation/social justice issues) that she has produced over the last several decades. A secondary assessment of those she has mentored in the literary and media fields will establish the influence she has exercised in these fields indirectly as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.240.98 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Claims to notability seem to include journalism and publications. The coverage I found showed journalism ([23] [24] [25]) and cooking ([26]) careers mentioned in reliable sources, but I don't think multiple reliable third parties give this subject substantial, non-trivial coverage. I'm open to changing my vote if better reliable coverage is found. JFHJr (㊟) 07:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This subject's other claim to notability — Miss India — is well covered there. That article can and should absorb any noteworthy information by its founder, but the present subject does not WP:INHERIT notability on the basis of Miss India alone. Again, I'm open to changing my vote, and if this subject in fact meets notability reqs otherwise, the Miss India part appears to merit a significant part of the prose. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must Keep - the following citation by the publisher on the back cover of one of her books ' How to be Successful and Happy! Sixty-four tips from India's ancient wisdom', well covers Vimla Patil's noteworthiness in a nutshell: "VIMLA PATIL is one of the senior-most multimedia person and activist in India. As editor of Femina, India's number one women's journal, for over twenty-five years, she was responsible for turning Femina into a sweeping movement for Indian women's empowerment and progress for three decades. She helped promote Indian Textiles - specially handlooms and hand-done embroidery - through thousands of fashion shows in India and more than twenty-five countries of the world. After her career with Femina Vimla Patil wrote for innumerable journals and newspapers in India and several websites worldwide. She has scripted and directed sound and light shows, television shows, documentary films and written more than fifteen books, including memoirs of career as the editor of Femina. She continues to work ceaselessly for women's empowerment through workshops and seminars. She is an established writer of travel, culture, and heritage-based features for many top magazines in India". And this is only one of such citations Vimla Patil has received not only from publishers of her work but also from various Institutions and Organisations while receiving honors and awards for her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.154.81 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cover of one of her books is not a reliable source. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I refer this thread to pages 367 - 370 of Fritjof Capra's book - Uncommon Wisdom - Conversations with Remarkable People, wherein he describes his interactions with Vimla Patil and acknowledges the scope of her knowledge on seminal issues ... he then goes on in the same vein to meet Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, on Vimla Patil's suggestion, following on with an analysis of the two meetings in the context of women's issues in India in the 1970's. I daresay Mr. Capra (The Tao of Physics, etc.) would be defined as a reliable source. An English version of his interview with Mrs. Patil is to be found on pages 302 to 306 at http://awakenvideo.org/pdf/Collection%20Vol%20I%20A-G/Fritjof%20Capra%20-%20Uncommon%20Wisdom%20Conversations%20With%20Remarkable%20People%20%5BOCR%5D.pdf. Please note the language consistently used by Mr. Capra in describing Vimla Patil. Indeed, he directly attributes his meeting with Mrs. Indira Gandhi (which forms the basis of Chapter 8 of his book) to being inspired by his conversations with Mrs. Patil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.240.98 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The page is substantially edited and rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.157.140 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite. Vimla Patil is a veteran journalist. She passes most of the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability#Creative professionals so I don't see any problem with notability. The Article is very poorly written even after so many edits and needs a major overhaul. I will try to help as much as I can but it would be great if it receives an expert's attention. trunks_ishida (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is largely rewritten and more references added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhakar Patil (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite the rewrite, this article should still go. Aside from a heap of inline external links to this subject's own publications, there's no supporting citation for the contents. None of the claims as to this subject's notability are supported; simply asserting WP:CREATIVE doesn't work (see WP:VAGUEWAVE). If this person is notable, show substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, or examples of how and why this subject passes under WP:CREATIVE rather than vague assertions. JFHJr (㊟) 17:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --MuZemike 03:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of WWE

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

All the information from this article is located in WWE. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 06:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why was the page even created in the first place. --Dcheagle 06:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally created this page because the history was getting a bit long. The history section is better than it was before, but it's still a little long. I'll wait and see what everyone else says before making a decision. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I believe what's supplemented on this page is all already on WWE. This page, however, is not included in Template:WWE. Although, maybe I can just redirect the page to, WWE#Company history. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to WWE. There seems to be significant overlap of content and a redirect would keep the history page in case it is needed in the future. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and summarize in WWE. I agree with Jtalledo here that the history section is long enough, and there is enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT. -- œ ^™ 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OlEnglish. There are certainly enough material to apply WP:SPINOUT. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. The history section of WWE could use trimming. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:45, 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 merge to Dubai English Speaking College. causa sui (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai English Speaking School

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

Primary schools are generally redirected; and this one seems to call for the usual treatment. Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate target, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Al Nasr, Dubai, and add a section there about the school. K-8 are rearely notable, onlyy when they have architectural or historical significance. Buggie111 (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are two schools of the same name, one offering primary education and the other offering secondary education. The two websites can be seen here: http://www.descdubai.com/. It should be renamed as Dubai English Speaking College. There are independent sources such as the inspection report: http://www.descdubai.com/inspection_report/DESC%20INSPECTION%20REPORT%202010.11.PDF. It is quite unsual to find an English speaking school which also offers an Islamic education which makes the school notable in its own right. Dahliarose (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This article is specifically about the school. Check the EL and ref in the article. The school itself does not meet our notability criteria. There is, as you point out, a distinct entity which is the college. The college does indeed appear notable, and one could write an article about it, but that is not this article -- that would be a new article, with content and refs related to the college. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that there is in fact already an article for the Dubai English Speaking College so I would just that the best solution would be merge this article for the junior school with the existing article for the senior school.Dahliarose (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[previous statement redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dubai English Speaking College as per Dahliarose. Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to the most appropriate target per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix#Catholic Education. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Bosco Interparish School

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

This one is very close to home, and some of my friends would have a COI deleting this article. But it doesn't meet any notability guidelines. No Blue Ribbon, fails the GNG (though it has five small-fry references), no reason to stick around. Raymie (t • c) 03:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original nomination was four years ago. At the time the sources were added, and the AfD resulted in a no consensus-keep. However, the times have changed. Of the five references, one is the school's website, one is GreatSchools review, two come from the local Catholic newspaper, and one from the local newspaper. It's extraordinary national-level coverage that would keep a school article like this afloat, not the mundane reports of the Arizona Republic and Catholic Sun. Raymie (t • c) 03:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phoenix, Arizona#Education or suitable ___location. The school appears to only educate to Grade 8 Junior High. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Kudpung recommends, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Isn't there an article on the diocese school system somewhere? If so, we should definitely redirect this there. I oppose a redirect to the city article, since this is a low-profile private school, not a well known one or a public school. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we also do that. Depends if the diocese has an article of course., but there's no harm in redirecting it t o the locality, even if it's a small or less well known school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to the locality presents issues here. Phoenix is so large, and Ahwatukee is only Phoenix with regards to city services (very different neighborhood, geographically separated, different area code!, etc.). I'd redirect to an Ahwatukee article over a Phoenix article. Also, the service area goes well beyond Ahwatukee to nearby Catholic parishes in Chandler and Tempe. Raymie (t • c) 20:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix#Catholic Education. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix#Catholic Education per standard practice for non-noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Tea

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

Exists, but lacks substantial RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage of this brand. In fact, I'm not even seeing any in-depth coverage of the brand in this article. --NellieBly (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NellieBly--Tacci2023 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A google search shows no reliable hits for the product except promotional material for the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 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 merge to Rainbow Gathering. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow retreats

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

Seems non-notable, from a glance through the gnews hits (which do not all relate to this). Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rainbow Gathering. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rainbow Gathering seems logical to me too. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:10, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eton Properties Philippines

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

The overarching company may be notable, however this offshoot seems less so. The article reads more like a brochure than an encyclopaedic article. To my way of thinking only the first two paragraphs even come close. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I agree. Looks like PR rubbish to me more than anything else. --Axel™ (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With fire. Blatant advertising like this has no place on Wikipedia.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:17, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Training Ground of Al-Masry Club in Al-Canal Al-Dakhly

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

no indication of WP:notability. Only primary sources given. noq (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this sports field. Only soiurces are the club's own website. Fails WP:GNG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:11, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Adibi

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

This football player does not pass WP:ATHLETE and the general notability criteria. He was on the roster for five professional teams, but he never actually played. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless, of course data crops up that he passes WP:GNG through a college football career or some other means.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . If he's never played I fail to see how he can be notable and meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 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) 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Give Up the Ship: The Tale of a Boy and His Boat

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

I found no significant coverage for this short film. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - The article contains one reference from a local paper. I could find no more coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:48, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Soo-chul

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

No references - and article has been around since 2006. No notability and no assertion of notability. No evidence of any chart success. Fails WP:BAND Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep- "has composed a number of film scores" is an assertion of notability. Has performed at a Korean inauguration, a nationally broadcast New Year's event ~~ditrector~~ director, and composed music showcased at the 2002 FIFA World Cup. I agree that current article here & ko.wiki page both need attention. Dru of Id (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article refers to him as a "national legend for his classical music pieces". I suspect there are better sources available in Korean. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple assertions of notability makes this an easy one, but the Korea Times reference seals it for me: major newspapers don't call classical composers "national legends" unless they truly are. --NellieBly (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per preceding voters. I've also added a half-dozen add'l sources to the article, including a substantial Allmusic bio. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:13, 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) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3ABN Radio programs

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

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

Failed {{prod}} without explanation Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unremarkable radio programs lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all : Non notable perWP:NLIST and WP:ADVERT (WP:COI). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick IV of Fürstenberg

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

Biograpical article that is only a genealogical entry. No other indication of importance. Nobility alone doesn't create notabiliy. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ben Ben (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's in the major German biographical dictionary, and we regard everyone there as notable . He was a ruling prince, with sovereignty over his County under the Holy Roman Empire. Just needs expansion and context--there are detailed histories, and much more to be said. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; WP:POLITICIAN is sufficient, since sovereigns of independent states are politicians who have held national office, no matter how tiny the state. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Same as in the article discussion about his father: One of his successors was raised to principality, see Fürstenberg (principality). He died as a Count, not as a Fürst. Redirect to Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg?--Ben Ben (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fail to see what would be gained by deletion here. Carrite (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The determining issue here ought to be whether he held significant political power. For example, we accord notability to mayors of major municipalities, members of provincial legislatures, etc, and the fact that the system of government was different and the post was hereditary is not relevant for Wikipedia. He is not required to have been sovereign ruler in his own right. That is without considering whether he would have been notable in his own time, and I find it inconceivable that he would not. --AJHingston (talk) 22:59, 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 keep. Suggest talk page discussion on possible moving to more appropriate page name Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim of Furstenburg

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

No indication of importance in the article or on the internet. Rootsweb is not a reliable source as it is a self-publishing genealogy site! Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beeing a Count alone is not enough for an article. (Yes, Count - not Prince. And his name is Fürstenberg, not ...burg. He is alreadey listed in Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg#Counts of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg (1559 - 1664). See refs there for name and title.--Ben Ben (talk) 16:59, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep. Sounds to me as if the county linked by Ben Ben was one of the independent German states (many counties were independent); if so, he was a monarch on the level of kings in other countries, and such a status would definitely make him pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One of his successors was raised to principality, see Fürstenberg (principality). He died as a Count, 69 years before that. Hope the year is right, then at least one fact would be right in this copy of an rootsweb entry. Rename and redirect to Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg? --Ben Ben (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject's precise position in the arcane pecking order of the Holy Roman Empire doesn't matter - he was sovereign in his realm. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question of whether he was technically sovereign does not matter. Did he hold a significant political office? Clearly so, and if we accord notability to mayors of large municipalities, members of provincial legislatures, etc we have to accord it here. --AJHingston (talk) 23:20, 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. causa sui (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Muhammad Yunus Khan

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

Appears to be non-notable, due to paucity of RS substantive coverage, lack of refs (tagged for that for 2 years now), and orphan status. Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Written as a tribute article, so also fails WP:MEMORIAL. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:16, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAKCO

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

Appears non-notable, given the absence of non trivial RS coverage. Tagged for its lack of refs and reading like an advert for over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Run of the mill electrical contracting company with no claims to achievements of the sort that get a business remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims or evidence of notability beyond the norm. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sound like they might be notable, but I can't find a single mention on gnews. Notability definitely not established and unlikely to be so.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:32, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fady Ferraye

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

While this DJ/producer does exist, I cannot find non-trivial RS mentions of him sufficient to support a finding of notability. Tagged for notability for over a year. Created by an SPA.Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to have been prolific, but that in itself doesn't give him notability. Other than a potential interview in Time Out Beirut, I can't find anything other than various blog entries, routine notices of performances, and various pages listing what tracks he's done. There's just not really anything reliable out there about this guy.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:03, 18 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, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking in significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 01:37, 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. causa sui (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phenom (musicians)

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

Phenom (or Phenomenal Entertainment) exists, but all I can find about them are press releases, blogs or basic listings - nothing significant in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 23:05, 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, TigerShark (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND, and I see no other reason to keep.--Michig (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roosevelt, Utah. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle View Elementary K-8

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate target, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uintah School District or Roosevelt, Utah per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knollwood Christian School

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate target, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with most other "_____ Christian School" articles without a high school. "_____ Christian School" is a name typically used by Protestants, who generally don't have comprehensive school systems like Catholics do, so there's generally nothing to which to redirect articles such as this one. I've never before heard of a school associated with the Assemblies of God (I'm sure there are others; it's simply that they likely don't have any notable ones), so I seriously doubt that they have a district or other grouping-of-schools with an article to which we could redirect this. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the city, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to locality per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please rem

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Brunswick School District 03. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

École Ernest-Lang

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Brunswick School District 03, the school district. I can't find non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. This is just another elementary school. --NellieBly (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as recommended by Gene93k, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for non-notable K-8 schools. Carrite (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Brunswick School District 03 per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please rem

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chatham Charter School. per established consensus for primary school articles. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham Charter School

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siler City, North Carolina per convention RadioFan (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as recommended by RadioFan, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siler City, North Carolina per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 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 South Gibson School Corporation. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Branch Community School

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Gibson School Corporation, the school district. My search for reliable sources gets one minor news story. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as recommended by Gene93k, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no evidence of notability, and a useful redirect to the school district. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a non-notable K to 8. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[previous statement redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Gibson School Corporation as per previous editors -- not notable enough for an independent article, although the info can be used to create a fuller school district article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Gibson School Corporation per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only Given this link, there is at least some information that is more than insignificant on the existing page that does not exist at South Gibson School Corporation, thus there is no content reason to delete the page before the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to South Gibson School Corporation. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haubstadt Community School

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Gibson School Corporation, the school district. The school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as recommended by Gene93k, per established consensus that only very rare K-8 schools are notable, and only when there are outstanding independent reliable sources documenting their historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the others; you might get more coverage for a large community, but Haubstadt definitely isn't large. Surprised that this isn't a creation of User:Kmweber, who believed that all schools should get articles — most of his efforts were concentrated on Gibson County and the surrounding area. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standing consensus in these cases. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[previous statement redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without delete to South Gibson School Corporation where the topic is already covered, but some of the current material might be merged. Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Gibson School Corporation as per previous editors -- not notable enough for an independent article, although the info can be used to create a fuller school district article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Gibson School Corporation per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 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.