Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 5

< 4 December	6 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. Sandstein 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Devino

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

Article does not meet WP:CRIMINAL standards for biographies. Devino was obscure criminal who did not do anything notable and was only known for being killed. Rogermx (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't find precedent either way on whether or not being a "made man" is a worthwhile claim to notability. I feel like since Devino was made, which makes him a very rare, powerful criminal, and because his murder is one of the most well-known Mafia murders (thanks to the book and movie), he should stay. I can't find a list of minor Mafiosi, but if there is one (like this, only nonfiction), I would probably change to redirect and merge to an entry for Devino there. CityO fSilver 23:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lists of members/associates at the end of most crime family articles. That might work. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Devino is indeed mentioned at the bottom of Gambino crime family; I think he should at least get a paragraph there. His death is too famous for just a bullet point. CityO fSilver 18:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's prolific coverage of this subject in RS, as usual. But the article also describes continued attention decades later, inclusion in a high-profile, notable film, and so on. The cultural impact of this event makes it anything but routine. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found some coverage searching for "Billy Batts" on Gbooks, this might be enough to keep it:[1][2][3]. I would argue that he is notable for his career as a criminal and for his depiction in a prominent movie. Also, if this is kept the title should probably be changed per the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources that I see on Devino talk about his murder. Yes, he inspired a memorable fictional character in a popular book and film, but I don't think that makes him notable according to the Wikipedia standard.Rogermx (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but editors' personal tastes and preferences do not establish notability, or lack thereof. Reliable sources do that for us. The fact that RS paid significant attention to Devino for decades after his death shows notability, irrespective of the nature of the coverage. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this person was only known for one event, and there are no reliable, secondary sources that discuss him. The sources that discuss his death all stem from Henry Hill's memoirs, a primary source and an unreliable one at that. Speciate (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Devino is not notable, he is only known for being murdered. His murder is covered in Thomas DeSimone#Murder of William Devino section. --Vic49 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's move the article to Murder of William Devino and call it a day, unless you believe that an event with decades of coverage in RS is routine news reporting :) The article section to which you linked specifically excludes any information about cultural impact. Deleting this article, thereby preventing any merger since the authorship of the merged content needs to be described, is highly inadvisable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I agree with Alessandra's suggestion. I appreciate everyone's input on this, it is not a black and white caseRogermx (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable criminal, no need for article.--Cox wasan (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - per ,[4][5][6]. Should be included because of extensive criminal history.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor criminal, fails WP:CRIME. Sources all stem from Henry Hill's memoirs, a primary source and unreliable. - DonCalo (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Numerous content issues: (1) article fails WP:V, (2) unsourced speculation (for example, Wikipedia's voice says, "This was done out of revenge..." and the next sentence contradicts, "An alternate theory..."), (3) multiple un-cited quotes, (4) WP:SYNTH ("little is known about Devino's early life"). I'd also support incubate or userfy if someone volunteers, as there is a good case being made here for enduring notability—in any case, get the article out of main space. The redirect needs to be created as a placeholder since there is no dispute that the topic is already covered in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - PEr Unscintillating's excellent post, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:36, 12 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cometman

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

This page has been an orphan since it's creation in 2006. It has no references, and its one external link provides very little information about the subject. A search for the character and/or the title he appeared in only returns results for Wikipedia and mirrored content. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is obviously not enough here to stand on its own as an article, and amazingly, some of what is here is wrong -- specifically, this was an Australian publication, not a British one. Generally, I'd prefer a merge/redirect result here over deletion, but none of the articles that would serve as upmerge targets exist. It's unlkely that the comic itself (variously titled The Invisible Avenger and Invisible Avenger Comics) would support an article either, although its publication is involved in a fairly complicated bit of Australian comics history. Despite ostensibly being printed by Jayar Studios and/or Illustrated Publications, this was very likely the work of publisher/printing company Ayers & James (best known in the field for the Australian reprints of Classics Illustrated) via its probable shell subsidiary Magazine Management (note that this is very much not the Magazine Management of Marvel Comics history). There's probably an article to be had in there, somewhere, but it's not here right now. And it's not this stublet about Cometman, regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having been insufficient in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources. If links are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 06:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ionela-Andreea Iova

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

fails NTENNIS, some doubles titles but only in ITF $10000 MakeSense64 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking through ITF/WTA websites i see nothing notable about this player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notbale as per NTENNIS. I request userification until notability is reached. (Gabinho^>:) 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. When his career develops enough to meet the notability rrequirementsa, then and only then, rewrite the article DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Clarke

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

Contested prod. Actor, only one minor role is asserted, BLP PROD contested with the man's IMDB entry. Not sufficient to pass either WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Harry Potter cast members per WP:BLP1E. Some non-substantial coverage is revealed in a Google News search, but there's no coverage in GBooks or the like. HurricaneFan 25 22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above per WP:TOOSOON. Just one role in his career ever fails WP:ENT, and what coverage that is available is for this BLP1E. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect without prejudice against expansion one subject becomes notable - Per above. Clearly not notable YET! Give it some time Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Many people will like to read his page and if it is kept then his new roles can be added. It has been too recently added to get gotten rid of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.172.101 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the essay WP:TOOSOON: I believe it reflects a strong consensus among Wikipedia editors that we don't write articles on people who might someday meet our notability guidelines, hoping that they will. Instead, we wait until they do meet our guidelines before we create the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having been insufficient in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources. If links are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanna family

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

This article is about a family who were newsworthy only for a single event in their lives - their deaths at the hands of the IRA due to their being mistaken for the actual target. This occurred by chance rather than due to who they were. As such it fails WP:1E. Additionally, the article reads like a memorial or obituary of these people, which fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The bombing itself may be independently notable, however such an article would have a completely different content and title. The encyclopedic information in this article is already recorded at Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1980-1989). To the best of my knowledge, the title "The Hanna family" is no more associated with this bombing than with any other event involving a family with the surname "Hanna". Thus the title and content of this article are not useful and should be deleted, without prejudice for the creation of an article on this bombing with an appropriate title and content, assuming it can be demonstrated to be independently notable. MegaSloth (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL as they were notable for only their deaths, which received coverage only because of the related incident. 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:E1. Could be a redirect somewhere, but not sure where. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with the nominator. --Katarighe (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page One Management

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

non notable company. This article was created before (along with articles about lots of the people they manage) and deleted. At the time the creator's name was P1Management or somethign like that. As all of the articles were just recreated by a single user, in a very short timeframe, I think it is likely a COI sock as well. (legit sock, since the original account was banned for username vio. But still a COI)

Borderline csd, but I thought I would give the benefit of the consensus, and get something more binding.

All of the artists are non notable imo. Some of them do have a couple of refs, but they are largely in passing, talking about other people.

There may be more, these are just the ones I grabbed and investigated off of the user's contribs. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original user's talk page, and the original AFD for one of the articles User_talk:P1magency Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Otis Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real assertion of notability made and three of four cited sources are LinkedIn pages. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having been insufficient in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources. If links are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn following improvement, referencing and long-standing consesus at WP:SHIPS the ships of over 100 tons / 100 feet long are notable enough to sustain articles. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTMS Pattani

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

Non-notable ship. No sources or references. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Naval vessels are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are details about its acquisition and specs. There are also several mentions of her tour patrolling the waters off Somalia.[7][8][9][10]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - commissioned naval vessels are automatically notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. All commissioned warships are covered in detail in publications such as Jane's Fighting Ships as well as the defence and general media and can be assumed to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick. Although I agree the article is fairly sparse it seems likely that there would be "significant coverage" in reliable sources so its likely notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments already made. Article is referenced, 'non-notable ship' simply isn't true. None of the nomination arguments are valid (at least any more). Benea (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw As the article is now referenced, and I have been corrected on the presumed notability of naval vessels. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 15:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom Hero

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

Totally unrefrenced article on an "upcoming book" by a red-linked author. Prod supported by 2nd WPian, then removed by an IP. Original PROD was: "No references and no claims to notability. Quick research shows no coverage in outside sources." Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (I was the editor who endorsed the prod). MikeWazowski (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any sign of a publishing date (or publisher). Notabily not established and unlikely to be so Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No signs of possible notability. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, all future events must be verifiable; no references or citations are given. Article also has significant issues; no references, no indication of notability, written from an in-universe perspective. It reads like someone has just completed the outline for their first novel and has chosen to announce it on Wikipedia, and as such contravenes WP:NOTADVERTISING too. It seems to me this could qualify for WP:SPEEDY#G11.--MegaSloth (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having been insufficient in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources. If links are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Awards Record List

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

This information belongs at "Grammy Award records" (no need for duplicate article). Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicate topic and a redirect doesn't seem to be helpful as a search term. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (as far as re-direct goes). --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unneeded, half baked, incomplete, duplicate content done badly. Mattg82 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Novothny

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

Contested PROD. Concern was article about Non-notable footballer; hasn't appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, it might be a promising footballer, but not notable for article on Wikipedia yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by Orangemike.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank White (Rapper

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

musician. Does not meet CSD criteria, but likely still not notable enough. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~It appears that this was speedy'd even though I removed the CSD template. I dont know how to close this :) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

It looks like the article was renamed or something, or the AFD was mixed up. The current title is Frank White (Rapper Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline A7, but AfD is fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This individual appears to have previously been covered at Frank White (Hip-Hop Artist), which was deleted under A7 on 2011-08-09. An archived version still exists here. Though the subject clearly fails to exhibit sufficient notability for inclusion, it's interesting to note that the material was written to a quite impressively encyclopedic standard as compared with most unsourced biographical articles we see around here. — C M B J 03:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry to say, but I don't see evidence that Mr. White is notable at present. If there are sources that say otherwise, now's the time to bring them forward. Usual Caveats apply, of course; a hit single or album may render the subject notable, and thus an article in the future may be appropriate. Not now, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babel enterprise

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

The article presents no evidence of notability, and I'm unconvinced that the product is actually notable. Certainly it's currently written like a very short advertorial in any case. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searching is not turning up any significant independent coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search has failed to find anything like reliable independent references: not a single review, let alone independent discussion. No evidence of Notability in article or on web. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A completely WP:Run-of-the-mill software product for which there is absolutely no evidence of notability as required by WP:GNG. Poking through the Google searches, I could not find independent secondary sources. Given the description (yawn) I was not surprised. Msnicki (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having been insufficient in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources. If links are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickole Heater

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

I have been unable to locate significant independent reliable source coverage to establish notability for this individual. There is a notability claim in the article which was cited to a source that did not support the claim. I couldn't find any mention of that in a reliable source to back the claim and have placed a fact tag on it. Additionally there is no automatic notability for the state chair of a political organization for college students under WP:POLITICIAN. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No proof of notability whatsoever. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 17:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reliable sources are unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no notability and there aren't any reliable sources. There is no reason for this page to exist. Contre-mesures (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence is enough to mention in a list at Texas College Republicans, but no reliable sources to support a standalone biography. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. m.o.p 04:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Between Chaos and Creation (film)

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

Non notable documentary. McCartney is obviously notable, and the album likely is, but a DVD extra with no news coverage etc is not notable. Article creator is creating quite a few of these, that might also need to be looked at. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably merge to Chaos and Creation in the Backyard - this one is a little borderline, but is part of Macca's filmography, however it is good for it to get a chance, perhaps as everything a Beatle does is usually analysed six ways to Christmas. Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Non-notable extra. I would vote merge, but I don't know if anyone will actually merge it. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Per the new admin. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chaos and Creation in the Backyard#Special Edition DVD where the cogent information on this 2005 already exists in context to other items on the DVD, and is now cited. Does not have enough indepependent notability to merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - reasonable search term with information in the other article. Rlendog (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scikit-learn

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

Non notable open source software Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does get 23 hits in the Google scholar search. Do we consider that trivial mentions? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw the nomination, I searched gnews and did not find references, I will be more vigilant in using scholar as well for articles like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly unusual, it is very seldom that gnews and gbooks come up empty for something that is all over gscholar. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has significant coverage [11]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I wrote this article, but I postponed doing so until after an article has been published about scikit-learn in the high-profile J. Machine Learning Research. If Orange deserves its own article, then so does scikit-learn, IMHO. This toolkit has dozens of developers, 163 forks on GitHub, a small ecosystem of supporting tools such as nltk-trainer, and occasional sponsorship from Google. Qwertyus (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is good, and with the other scholar links may be sufficient. Just a note, usage, community, ecosystem, support, etc are irrelevant for the purposes of establishing WP:N - except that items which have large robust communities will be correlated with WP:N Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also is an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sakis Gouzonis

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

Composer who does not appear to meet WP:Notability (music). Existence of works can be verified, but there is no indication that the artist has contributed to a notable recording or works, is signed to a major label or prominent indie label or charted in national charts or received significant awards, that the individual or his works have received third-party coverage in WP:RS to warrant an article; most seem to be reprints of his own website. Artist's only prominence is as an indie artist on MySpace, which does not constitute notability. He has a history of participating in two music competitions but it has not been established why these projects are themselves notable. Article also appears to be largely based on artist's site; only sources provided are from blogs and portals.GreekStar12 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Eshaghoff

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

Delete: Dubious notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 04:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . Article seems to be created by a single-purpose account [12] (who created one more article for another Iranian musician on the same day). Search yields no significant independent sources mentioning this artist. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete She seems to exist, with a valid but not very notability-establishing reference in the article; and the sources available on Google are even weaker, eg Dowling College: Celebration of Persian Culture. I think notability is not yet established. Feel free to convince me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Delete She has released her first album on 2006 you can find her album on [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ompj (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C.L. Washbrook

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

No assertion of notability per WP:AUTHOR; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; no ISBNs available for her books, so I assume they're self-published. Proposed deletion contested by creator: see article's talk page, but references are needed to support vague claims of awards, television appearances, academic journals, etc. Filing Flunky (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I don't think this poet meets our notability criteria, as I can't find any independent reviews of her works, no entry at G-books or WorldCat or elsewhere. The "Matlock Poetry Society Stanza" doesn't seem to exist and the "International Poetry Award" is a bit vague definition. The claims in our article are unverifiable by reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The citation given for "International Poetry Award (Bronze) in 2004" is to this page on WebSpawner.com ("Free webpages fast!") which was last updated (and, I would hazard, created) on 05 December 2011 at 15:06:27 GMT. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any sources on Google and Google News Archive. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can find is blogs. No evidence of Notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and the reference to the award is a self-published webpage. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Although, on Talk:C.L. Washbrook, editor Temple Franklin denies being Clare Washbrook, I note that the YouTube link supposed to support the claim that the subject appeared in Balderdash and Piffle states "Uploaded by CLWashbrook on 5 Dec 2011". --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history also reveals a great deal of edit-warring, and possible sockpuppetry. One new editor has just been blocked for repeatedly removing the AFD tag. Filing Flunky (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is rapidly looking like a SNOW DELETE, isn't it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bet-at-home.com

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

Article recently (cross-wiki) created by what appear a group of COI editors, using redirect sites to avoid tripping blacklisted .com. The base of this article is totally referenced to primary sources. There is some mention of the site in some other sources, but that relates to 'bet-at-home.com sponsored this event'. Seems a big organisation, but lets discuss whether this is indeed notable enough for an own article. 11:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

It was the aim to write an article which confirms with all the guidelines of Wikipedia and don’t has any extenuations in it. Due to this I wrote the article together with an adopter of the English Wikipedia. The adopter checked the article I’ve prepared on the sandbox. I am willing to change the article to avoid the deletion.--Bah2011 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you could dig up a good number of independent references. The first non-subject related reference is currently #12 ([14]), which is a correct reference for the statement, but I don't feel that those (or subsequent similar references) give too much proof of notability for the company. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to switch the article back to my sandbox so that I could have a look at the references and have the possibility to change them please? --Bah2011 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for now. Creator clearly shows willingness to fix the issues with the article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 18:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not unwilling to move it back to userspace - that may be a good solution - but still I'd like to see some references which give this entry proper notability first, otherwise it stays there catching dust. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now searched for more independent references. Should I integrate them now in the article or in the userspace? --Bah2011 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can do that now as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have integrated the new references. In some cases there are now two references for one part of the article. Could you please give me a feedback if the new references are ok in your opinion? --Bah2011 (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is getting better, I am a bit worried for the first one, that seems to be research which is done on request by bet-at-home.com (do I see that correct, or does Performaxx select which companies to research themselves?). I'd like to hear some further input from other editors as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This is an independent research house. But I have now supplemented this part with a second reference from a quality newspaper.--Bah2011 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the addition of the new sources the article now passes WP:WEB and scratches on WP:GNG. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 07:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonell Awards

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

WP:NN local scholarship / award. As mentioned in the first AFD, Recipients of this scholarship are frequently mentioned in the media as "Carbonell Award winning" but there is no in-depth coverage of the award itself, which fails WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A7, twice: first by Materialscientist (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)), then recreated and deleted again by TParis (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binod khadka

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

Notability is asserted in the article (saving it from an A7), but I can find no sources at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding sources. I sentence claiming popularity isn't even a micro stub of an article. RadioFan (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not even an article. Vincelord (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agassi–Chang rivalry

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

Is only a repository of results and unsourced. Same as an earlier AfD for Agassi-Rafter rivalry [15]. Agassi and Chang never met in a Grand Slam final, and Chang was a one-slam winner who was never ranked nr1. By this standard we could get a lot of head-to-head results pages on WP. According the WP:NSPORTS rivalries are not inherently notable. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, I see no evidence that there was really a notable 'rivalry' of any kind. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage and thus third party sources (lack of any references so to say). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 07:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per users Nwlaw63 and Lajbi; also subjective and of questionable notability. Quis separabit? 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already been deleted. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computweak

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

Fails WP:NOTGUIDE Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 11:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already been deleted. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AKHUNKHEL INFORMATION

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

Weird essay/multi-person biography mix. No sources, no apparent notability, and unreadable in its current form. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This user and some apparent sockpuppets are adding this material to WP as fast as they can. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhunbaba. It's OR, a content fork and almost incomprehensible. andy (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Participation is fairly low, but Msnicki has offered an analysis of the sources that illustrates why they don't meet the requirements for independence or significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy William Farrell

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

Subject has dubious claim to notability. Tagged for notability since October. No evidence that books Farrell wrote were published. Article looks like a vanity piece, likely created by the subject of the article. BlackCab (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The Sydney Morning Herald story was written by Farrell himself, making it a primary source and not usable. The Channel 9 program isn't about him, he's merely interviewed. The other two sources are simply useless. I Googled and couldn't find anything else. The article appears to be WP:AUTO. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Msnicki's comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Martin (garden designer)

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

This individual does not appear to pass our WP:BIO guidelines. It is claimed that he is in multiple publications, but none of these are readily available. And Donegarden (talk · contribs) claims to be the subject and does not want the page here. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just searched Wigandia. Plenty of material out there to justify an article. For example [16] Whether he wants the page here isn't an issue as long as we respect WP:BLP. That said the article as it stands has very obvious POV issues. Articles that refer to their subject by their given name are annoying so I'm changing that. Won't affect AfD but will irritate me less. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, subject cited in The Garden, Jan 2005; House and Garden, May 2004; and Better Homes and Gardens (Australia), Dec 2002. This meets the brightline for WP:CREATIVE. As Tigerboy1966 states, the subject's desire to have or not have an article is irrelevant within the guidelines of WP:BLP. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. The subject not wanting the article to exist is irrelevant. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear in case of WP:COI that I had never heard of WM before 5 December, but I did do some work on it after it came up for nomination as I thought he seemed like an interesting chap. I'm not withdrawing "keep" but closing admin might want to take my involvement into account when evaluating my contribution to this discussion. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment +1 - I see absolutely no COI here, but I applaud your 'Better be safe than sorry' approach, Tigerboy1966. Colon el Tom 11:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Lady Gaga songs

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

Are these songs notable enough to include in an encyclopedia precisely because they were were "ultimately rejected and remain unreleased" by the recording companies? Am I missing something here? Basically, the page is original research & Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Technopat (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this qualifies as synthesis, but I do think that this demonstrably fails WP:N. The only sources for these unreleased songs is the distributor itself. To put this in perspective, Tupac Shakur's unreleased songs are more notable with third party sources and they don't have their own article -- and shouldn't. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the songs in this list were simply pulled from the BMI site, so there is no evidence that they got any coverage in an independent source. It may also violate WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cleaned this up awhile back and was going to add more info later, but there aren't a lot of noteworthy sources discussing Gaga's unreleased songs at great length. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failure of WP:N. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with other users, failure of WP:N. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 00:54, 13 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. Consensus for these seems pretty clear; I have no personal opinion. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabi crop & Kharif crop

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

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

These related articles are just poorly sourced definitions of Hindi/Punjabi terms. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge and Redirect - they are terms that continues to be used in Indian agriculture, even within Agricultural universities that teach in the English medium. (Archive search) I would agree that it certainly needs improvement. Shyamal (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that both articles redirect to Growing season with a merger of the content there. Shyamal (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles need work but the topics seem appropriate and notable.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - Well documented Indian and Pakistani agriculture terms, after viewing some of the links from Archive search above, this topic appears to pass WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable terms in agriculture. Very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 14:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These seem to be the Hindi terms for seasonal crops and not a special unique categorization to the region. It would therefore be quite logical, in my view, to merge them to a larger article on seasonal crops in general (and indeed at the very least these 2 should probably be merged to aid the readers). We seem to have an article on Seasonal food, which is awfully skimpy at the moment, but a merge would not only make life easier and more efficient for readers but would probably also reduce geographic bias!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second a merger of these terms - my vote would be to Growing season. Shyamal (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I like that one much more, especially since it only focuses on a small part of the world right now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable terms found in English-language textbooks and journals of India. Nearly 296,000 English-language results on Google Book Search. The pages should probably be merged into a single article, thoguh. utcursch | talk 13:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable terms used in the agriculture of the Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:06, 13 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Silent Life. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Life

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

This film appears to be non-notable according to Wikipedia:GNG. I can find no significant coverage in independent sources -- only a non-significant mention in a BBC article. All significant coverage is in press releases and on the film's website. Mopportunity (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Mopportunity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mopportunity (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate for 6 or 7 weeks. We have a completed film that is slated for release in February. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate as a good, reasonable solution. It is not a wizard's prediction betting this movie will be notable in a few mounths. And work on the page does not need to be deleted, being neutral and well written.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please remember that arguing the article should be deleted because you feel it's spammy or people are trying to advertise on it - these are not reasons for deletion. These are reasons for a rewrite. m.o.p 04:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Foundation

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

This is supposedly about some non-profit organization that has existed for 5 years, but has only had some sort of vague press in the past few months. This page has been highly subject to COI violating edits by editors proven to be socks of each other and one account that has been blocked for possibly being paid to edit Wikipedia on the behalf of the organization. A large portion of this article is relying on passing mentions of the foundation on various Japanese news agencies and most of its daughter articles are all sourced to Discogs and primary sources. There is no coverage of this organization in the Japanese language as far as I can tell. I have used the name "タイラー基金" (which appears on the Japanese version of their website) and used the names of several major Japanese newspapers and have found nothing. This just appears to be some organization doing its damnedest to get itself known, without actually doing anything of note. —Ryulong (竜龙) 08:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic is meeting WP:GNG, per [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 & additional references found on notable websites.46.116.58.138 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)— 46.116.58.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This IP is very likely a sockpuppet of the Tylershineon accounts, as the only other IPs to have ever edited the article are based in Israel.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, I agree with User:Ryulong's rationale. There seems to be no real notability to this group. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - seems to be the work of a persistent group trying to spam/advertise their group and recordings. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link to CNN page offers only a trivial mention. The rest is mainly from small local publications mentioning fundraisers. Questionable notability. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be the work of some group trying to persistently advertise that organization. GrayFullbuster (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Tyler Foundation is a charitable organization located in Tokyo, Japan that offers Psychosocial support to families and children with cancer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is this relevant to the deletion discussion?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage is fine. You can click the Google news archive link and find even more. Dream Focus 08:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep this article has what looks like good coverage but the way it is written might need some changes and the part about the programs isn't necessary. This article needs cleanup, but is a keeper.Silent Bob (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the article could use some polishing and trimming, but otherwise the Tyler Foundation is notable and documented by the references.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:16, 13 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. Consensus seems clear that it is significant enough, and sufficiently sourced DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Wing Cafe

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

Unsourced article about a restaurant chain. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Despite searching, I could not find articles or book that substantially cover the chain. Sparthorse (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage of any note either. With a name like that it should be fairly easy to find, if it existed. Sionk (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. I would give this very new article the benefit of the doubt for now. There are lots of google hits, but someone (not me!) needs to sort through all the promotional and user-generated material and extract something independent and reliable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per availability of reliable sources:

Ellis, Mike (January 1, 2009). "Fans root on New Year's Day for losing South Carolina football teams". Independent Mail. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Morrison, Alexander (September 10, 2006). "Drink Specials: S.C. Law Forces Bars, Nightclubs to Change Their Pouring". Herald-Journal. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Charlotte Restaurant Surrenders Liquor License". Wsoctv.com. May 13, 2005. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Gorsegner, Michael (February 5, 2006). "Local Fans Cheer On Super Bowl". Newsplex.com (Gray Television, Inc.). Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Eckstein, Sandy (October 9, 2008). "On our list: The Wild Wing Cafe, Havana Restaurant & Cafe". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Ware, Lisa (August 24, 2011). "Top three Asheville, NC, bars to watch the NFL". Yahoo Sports. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Out To Lunch". Charlotte Observer. January 9, 2004. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Wings Land at Ayrsley, Wild Wings Cafe Joins Southwest Devemopment". Charlotte Observer. October 8, 2002. Retrieved December 5, 2011.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not a single one of those hits establish notability, only verification that the chain exists. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How so? Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not about the subject, but instead only mention it in passing. That does not establish notability per the standards. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I myself know that this is a real chain as it is prevalent mainly in the south-east U.S. The above articles reference that. I find it hard to believe that there is nothing of note that comes up on Google. Mjohn127 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Wild Wing Cafe is known in many areas for their variety of wing flavors. Many families go to Wild Wing Cafe on a weekly or daily basis. Wild Wing Cafe hosts many bands and radio stations including ESPN. Those who frequent Wild Wing Cafe would like to see it's notability recognized and have users collaborate on their knowledge of the franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshelby17 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a search of Google I moved on to Nation's Restaurant News, the New York Times and other industry specific search sources - none of which have any links to articles about the chain. Like Northamerica I found many instance where the is mentioned or reviewed, thus establishing that the subject is verifiable; however I found nothing that establishes why the chain is notable. There was not a single article that was about the chain 10-15 pages into any of my searches (about three hundred fifty total links examined). Aside from anecdotal evidence, this chain shows no notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well delete all restaurant chain article's that aren't the majors, such as McDonalds, Burger King, Dominos, etc., then. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, local and regional press counts when establishing notability (only if it is not a review), the thing is that this chain gets no mention in major publications. Similar sized chains have and do often recieve coverage in major media, It is I could find nothing of substance that establishes notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a 34 unit chain of restaurants is almost definitely notable, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy's Pizza. It might take a little more searching, but once I found a copy of the March 2003 profile of the chain in Hilton Head Weekly on the restaurant's own website, you can find that Cecil Crowley was the founder, and you get more results when looking for him. I am sure there are other things we can search on as well.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. 34 units of a generic chain does not make something notable in my book. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An assessment of the actual sources would be helpful for this discussion, rather than a quantification of stores as a basis to erase an article from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that !vote should be taken out and shot. If one looks at the sources added to the article since the nomination, the notability is clear.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have over 30 locations, so yeah, they are obviously notable in their field. Google news archive search shows 380 results. I don't see any reason to bother going through them though, since notability has clearly been estalished by way of common sense. Dream Focus 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With over 30 locations in several states, this chain obviously is doing well. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanlitun Village

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

Half empty article that is leaning dangerously close to About Sanlitun Village. See Duplication Detector Report Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - far too close; I've removed one paragraph that was a blatant copyvio from two sources. A quick look at gnews hits suggests there could be some notability. I didn't notice any obvious significant coverage, but there may be some in non-English sources. It certainly seems to be a well-known shopping centre in Beijing. --Beloved Freak 12:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I lived in Beijing, working as a reporter. The building of Sanlitun Village was widely reported in local media. Moreover, it is a big and efficient shopping centre. So again as a reporter, it is good to be able to find English language info on it. More info on how much it cost an which architects built it would be even more helpful. User:Anothersixpence —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep based on Anothersixpence's comments (which I take in good faith). Need to get some sources though - if not in English, then at least in Mandarin. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but mark as lake of reliable source, there seems to be plenty of mentions[22] of the building in Chinese news, like this[23] and this[24]. Those news articles do read like advertisement of the property, but this[25] article says the village is an exemplary street mall which may have some architectural design value.

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per R3 by Thumperward (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billa 2/redirects

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

This protected page qualifies for deletion under CSD R3. -- Jab7842 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew after a good source was found, which also answers the other objections. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Parisians

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

Orphan article that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. A baseball team is not assumed to be automatically notable. —Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgot to mention in nomination that the article was de-prod with edit summary of "Professional baseball team".—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - But first it would be nice to notify the article's creator/primary editor that this page needs reliable sources to prove notability. Then if they can't come up with any in a reasonable amount of time (say a few days or so?) the article will be deleted. What do you think, or have you tried any of these things? MsBatfish (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator is the one that deproded the article and has not added any new sources, nor was any intent to add any sources in the future expressed. Past attempts at discussion with this editor to add sources in other articles has been well chronicled. Under the circumstances, an AfD, unfortunately, seemed to be the best venue to identify sources. Per standard procedure, the article creator was notified of this AfD. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me :-) MsBatfish (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contrary to the opinion of the nominator, a professional baseball team is assumed to be automatically notable. Spanneraol (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSPORTS says to use WP:ORG for teams: "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG."—Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the past we've always accepted articles on minor league teams as having legitimacy.. I would hate to think that this is going to lead a wave of delitionists trying to get rid of those articles. In any event, sources should exist on this team.. though they may be off-line sources being that the team last played in the 1920s... so it may be difficult to obtain them promptly. Spanneraol (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that they only played one season way back in 1908 and they were a minor league league team swayed me to nominate. Offline sources are fine if they can be identified and more than trivial mention. No prejudice to re-create later either.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there are no references given in the article to prove any of this. Something is not notable just because someone says it fits notability guidelines, there actually has to be proof that it does, by way of reliable sources. The only reference currently cited is a list of Paris, Illinois Minor Leagues, which gives no information about the Paris Parisians other than their name and it specifically states that the list may be inaccurate. MsBatfish (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're a notable team, but they certainly did exist. I do have proof that the Parisians existed, per a reference in The Sporting News's paid subscription-based archives from 1908. It is hard as hell to find references that far back, especially with TSN paper scans being really faded up until a certain point in the 1920s. The search engine managed to find a few references showing that they at least played two seasons in the league, per standings posted on July 4, 1907 and other dates through sometime in 1908. From what I gather, they turned down an offer to join the league, but midway through the season they joined up anyway and started playing games. Oh well, I'm not voting, but the team isn't a hoax. You can always just assume I'm a liar even though I spent practically 15 minutes going through like 50 sources that remotely had words that might look similar to Illinois or Paris according to TSN's search engine on garbled scans. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's claiming that the Parisians are a hoax, let alone assuming you are lying :-) I think the issue isn't whether or not they exist, but whether or not they are notable enough for an article. And the article needs to show the sources for this notability. MsBatfish (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The link in the article to baseball-reference.com verifies that this was a professional baseball team that belonged to what was then known as the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues (and is now known as the Minor League Baseball). All teams in these leagues received significant coverage in the annual Spalding and Reach Guides. (Examples of the Spalding Guides are available on-line at the Library of Congress [26]. Though their collection doesn't cover the 1908 baseball season, I've viewed the Guides for those years on microfilm. According to WP:N, "Sources are not required to be available online.") I think there's also a strong presumption that local newspapers also covered the team; when I've researched other minor league teams from that era, I've never run across one that wasn't covered by local newspapers. Although sources may not be available online, I'm fairly certain that they could be found at a good research library. (I'm not able to get to a good library this week to look up the specific references.) BRMo (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that during the period that this team was in existence, Paris, Illinois had a daily newspaper, which is available on microfilm. [27] The newspaper almost surely provides significant coverage of the team. Next time I get to the library, I will try reviewing the newspaper. BRMo (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well it looks like this discussion has prompted some people to do some research on this team and hopefully there will soon be enough reliable sources referenced in the article. If that happens within a reasonable time frame I will change my "delete" stance to a "keep". This is exactly what these kinds of discussions are for :-) MsBatfish (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out the article also covers the 1923 KITTY league version of the team from Paris, Tennessee. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two subjects should be disambiguated into separate articles (if notable), unless it can be shown they are the same franchise. By analogy, we wouldn't combine all John Doe's in the world to create a super article about independent non-notable subjects that share the same name. There are currently no sources in the article for the Tennessee team, which itself is another minor league team, albeit existing for two years (1923–1924) instead of just one.—Bagumba (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully professional baseball team. I don't want a precedent to be set by the deletion of this article, and it will be a very dangerous precedent. Alex (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, that is no different than you said when you removed the prod. When an article is nominated for deletion, you are supposed to show evidence to back up your opinion that it should be kept. For example, reliable sources that support what is said in the article, proof of notability, quote Wikipedia policy, and so on. Merely saying "professional baseball team" doesn't tell us anything or even prove that that is true. (You can click on the words in blue for more details). I noticed that a lot of articles you have created have been proposed for deletion so perhaps it would be very helpful for you to read these pages, and also keep these things in mind when creating articles. Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple references that fulfill WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsautographs (talk • contribs)

Note: I made above comment by Alex (talk · contribs) a separate entry per WP:REDACTED.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added to-date do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, which notes to exclude items such as "the season schedule or final score from sporting events" and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization". The article Cantillon's Acquisition is more focused on the Washington team than Paris. I am confident you are familiar with WP:ROUTINE and in-depth coverage, as you have referenced them in past discussions. Thanks for the updates.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making an effort to add references to the article. It's great to know there's a free viable search engine for baseball players and teams from 1885 to 1920. This will definitely help my search in finding references for future AFDs on players from this era. However, the references added were either WP:ROUTINE, or one sentence passing mentions. I do not think this is enough to pass all the guidelines the delete votes above have cited this article is accused of failing. I still don't have a vote for this, but hopefully this search engine can help avoid bringing notable subjects to AFD in the future. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, please refrain from changing your comments after people have already replied to them.

As for the current references in the article:

1.Encyclopedia of Minor League Baseball: Second Edition - I don't have access to this one so I'm not sure what exactly it says

2. "A League Expands". Sporting Life. - All it says is "the other members of the league were... Paris..."; presumably referring to the town Paris, but doesn't call them "the Parisians" or provide information about the team.

3. "A Year's Work". Sporting Life. - This says "Illinois League... Paris played..." (as above)

4. "Cantillon's Acquisition". Sporting Life. - Says there was a "Paris Illinois team", doesn't specify Parisians.

5. BR Minors - this one does say "1908-Eastern Illinois League-Paris Parisians" but gives no other information and says that it may not be accurate.

6. "Chronology" - This says, "1924.. the Paris Parisians... take second-half honors." Don't think that's even the same team and it's only a passing mention.

7. "Major League Alumni" - Doesn't say anything about either team.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think any of these meet WP:Notability guidelines. (See also the guidelines cited by Bagumba above). They are not "significant coverage" in "reliable independent sources". In fact, I don't think that some of them even meet criteria for inclusion in an article. Unless the Encyclopedia of Minor League Baseball is a way better source with much more information than any of these others, which I doubt, I still say Delete. MsBatfish (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll note that prior to the 1920s, references to baseball teams in the press usually did not include a reference to the nickname or mascot. So the failure of sources from that era to call them the "Parisians" is not surprising; even for major league teams, articles of that era would typically refer to them just by the name of the city (or the city and league, if there were teams from two leagues playing in the city). While I agree that the references available online don't provide significant coverage (though I argue above that there are other sources available in libraries that can estalish notability), the absence of the nickname "Parisians" is not relevant to the question of notability. BRMo (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it might be in this case, since all the sources are such minor passing mentions, (which in itself means they don't meet the notability guideline), I don't know whether we can even be certain they are talking about the Parisians. I don't know a whole lot about baseball, but are we to assume that any mere mention of the existence of a team called "Paris" is enough to be certain they are talking about the Parisians? Only one source says there even was a team called the Paris Parisians and doesn't give any other information than the home state and one year 1908. (I assume the 1924 team is a different team, and the Paris Parisians article says that it is). If you want to look for better sources at the library then that's great. As I said, I will easily change my "delete" to a "support" when there are some sources that meet notability :-) MsBatfish (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if one of the arguments against this article is that the team played only one year in a relatively unknown league. However, a club of the same name did play in the KITTY league in 1923-1924. The KITTY League was not an unknown, obscure league - rather, it existed on-and-off from 1903 to 1955, a span of over 50 years. Sufficient detail has been added to the article concerning the 1923-1924 squad to make the article notable, as well as other information gleaned about the 1908 squad.

It also seems rather...unfair...to apply "modern" keep/deletion criteria to extremely old subjects, because old subjects are less likely to have the same prolific number of news articles on the Internet as modern subjects. Just because the 110-year-old subject does not have news articles on the 'net does not mean articles do not exist - it is just difficult to track them down. How many of us have Sporting Lifes from 1908 laying around? It seems wise to err towards thinking the articles do exist (and therefore the article should be kept), they just need to be found elsewhere.

Remember that almost every single modern newspaper, big and small, is on the Internet, delivering millions and millions of potential sources for any modern subject imaginable. It's safe to say most older newspapers and other sources are not on the Internet, drastically limiting the number of those readily accessible, with many of the most desirable ones (like Sporting News) costing more than anyone seems willing to pay to access.

It just seems iffy that we have minor league baseball player articles (that otherwise would likely not be notable had the subject played in the 1950s) who, due to the subject playing in the Internet age, have sufficient coverage that would be "kept," while an entire, fully professional team that did not have the benefit of playing during the Internet age (and therefore does not have as easily accessible sources) is being considered for and may be on the verge of deletion. Alex (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The efforts to improve this article to date have masked the lack of notability by bombarding the article with trivial references that do not directly address the subject of the article.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article lacks a main subject, with notability masked by indiscriminately dealing with two non-related Paris Parisians teams, one in Tennessee and the other in Illinois.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone have a proposal for a date by which it can reasonably be concluded with reasonable certainty whether or not sufficient significant, not trivial, sources exist for one of the Paris Parisian teams (do not combine into one article). This would be the most efficient use of everyone's time.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primarily per BRMo regarding off line sources for the Eastern Illinois team and if anything, the KITTY league team is even more notable. However, I do think this title should be disambiguated to cover each team separately. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the 1908 Paris Parisians were the same franchise as the 1907 Paris Colts (which is strongly implied by the "A League Expands" reference in the article, which does not list Paris as an expansion franchise and consistent with the tendency 100 years ago for even major league teams to change nicknames much more frequently than today), then this book has significant coverage as well. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The articles notability is being further masked adding sources for for any team from a city named Paris in either Illinois or Kentucky. Until its determined that the Colts are related to the Parisians, it might be more appropriate to place text regarding history of teams in Paris, Illinois such as the Colts into the Paris, Illinois article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A newspaper article already referenced states that before the 1908 season. 2 teams were added to the Eastern Illinois League. It also says that "the other members of the league are Mattoon, Charleston, Paris (emphasis added), Pana, Shelbyville and Taylorville." There was only one Paris team in the Eastern Illinois League in 1907, which was then nicknamed the Colts. So while I concede that there is a slim possibility that the new Paris Colts team folded sometime between the end of the 1907 season and February 1908, a new Paris team was founded in the interim, and this newspaper article chose to ignore the new Paris team when describing the new Eastern Illinois League for 1908, that seems like grasping at straws. And even if that was the case, the establishment of a Paris franchise in the Eastern Illinois League during the prior season would still be highly relevant to the 1908 "new" Paris franchise. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed the Colts are worth a mention in this article, but not three sentences on the Colts history. This is a Parisians article. I propose the details be merged into Paris, Illinois or spun out to a standalone article if notable. While I agree with the induction you are using about possible relationship between Colts and Parisians, reading between the lines is not suitable for inclusion in WP.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know. At worst there is 2 sentences worth of material on a related team, that readers who come to the (Illinois) "Paris Parisians" article would likely be interested in. At best, and in the most likely scenario, the information in those 2 sentences is highly relevant to the Parisians. I am not sure how easy it will be to definitively resolve the relationship between the 1907 Colts and 1908 Parisians. Teams changing nicknames was pretty common in that era (see the Dodgers, Braves and Indians) and it was not uncommon for multiple names to be used, so even an official name change may not have attracted much attention. Maybe those looking into the microfiche will find something to definitively connect or disconnect the Colts and Parisians. In light of the possible ambiguity, however, it may make sense to change the name of the article to "Paris (Eastern Illinois League)" rather than using a specific team nickname (of course "Paris Colts" and "Paris Parisians (Eastern Illinois League)," or whatever names are used, would redirect there). And then there would be no problem with treating the Colts and Parisians in the same article. It would not be our typical way of handling team nicknames, since we would normally use the most recent nickname used by the franchise, but if we are not comfortable with the ambiguity over whether these teams actually represent the same franchise, that seems like an appropriate solution. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was a professional baseball team at any time, then it would've gotten coverage in the newspapers of its area as well as the communities it played its away games at, plus elsewhere. Dream Focus 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, getting consensus to add to an SNG like WP:NSPORTS would avoid these discussions. Until then, WP:GNG needs to be demonstrated for each article upfront.—Bagumba (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the first time this has come up where someone has attempted to delete a professional team.. Previous consensus has held that professional sports teams are notable. Should be added to NSPORTS in any event, we cover seasons and rivalries on there I don't know how we overlooked teams when that was set up. Seems like an oversight. Spanneraol (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was an earlier discussion in September at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_9#Clubs_and_teams, which resulted in a note in NSPORTS to use WP:ORG for teams.—Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since when does anything get automatic notability status solely for existing? We still need reliable sources that are referenced in the article which contain significant coverage of the topic by name. It is not enough to say such sources probably exist somewhere, or that it's unfair to apply notability policy to things that existed a long time ago. Off-line sources are acceptable, they just have to provide significant coverage of the specific topic. How long do people want in order to find and reference such sources? I agree with Bagumba, we need a deadline. MsBatfish (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline on Wikipedia, but in that same breath I don't think this article has much, if any potential for a team that lasted roughly one and a half seasons, regardless of what era the team played. Sources were found in The Sporting News and Sporting Life, but they were all either passing mentions or routine standings updates. I'm still not voting to delete since I don't want to green light the deletion of all minor league teams from that era, but it's a hard sell to say that because this team exists, it's automatically notable despite a ton of guidelines saying otherwise. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every article proposed for deletion is discussed on its own merits and deleting this article would not "green light" deletion of all minor league teams from that era. It would also not prevent anyone from making an article on the Paris Parisians if and when substantial/significant information on them is found in reliable sources. I don't think that WP:There is no deadline (which is also an essay and not a policy) really applies here. We have timeframes set for the close of discussions all the time. What they're talking about in that essay is that articles are always a work in progress and generally don't have to be "perfect" by a certain date, and that Wikipedia will never be "finished". They are just trying to explain how it is different from a print encyclopedia or a magazine. It does not mean deletion discussions should go on endlessly. If you dislike the use of the word "deadline" I can explain it another way: it would be ideal if we could agree to postpone deletion for a reasonable amount of time in order to give people who want to do so time to look for sources that prove notability, but not indefinitely, and agree that if no sources can be found within a reasonable amount of time (which we should be a set amount of time, as "reasonable" is subjective) then the article should be deleted. Is that clearer? MsBatfish (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the fact that per WP:N "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation," and the fact that virtually everything in the article is cited, the Rube Foster book at least provides substantial coverage of the 1907 Paris Eastern Illinois League team. Plus it refers to substantial coverage in Paris' Daily Beacon, e.g., (one example of many) "A lengthy piece in the Daily Beacon announced the city's acceptance into the Eastern Illinois League, a Class-D association." So even if you believe that somehow the 1907 Paris Colts and 1908 Paris Parisians of the Eastern Illinois League were different franchises and that the Sporting Life piece referenced in the article about the league's expansion in 1908 neglected to mention that fact, at most we should be discussing renaming at this point (if no further coverage of the 1908 Parisians exists), not deletion. Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I was able to find a source that definitively says the Colts were definitively renamed to the Parisians: Peter Filichia (1993). Professional baseball franchises: from the Abbeville Athletics to the Zanesville Indians. p. 173. ISBN 9780816026470. The AfD discussion was good to spur the identification of sources for what was far from an WP:IDEALSTUB, even if it became littered with trivial references that did not establish notability. Based on the non-routine sources found to-date, the fact the franchise existed for at least three seasons (one in Centralia, two in Paris) makes it likely that more non-routine sources exist offline. No prejudice to delete if those sources do not materialize in the article (six months enough time?) or at least on the talk page. For those with more expertise than I who believe that all professional baseball teams are notable, I invite them to add it to an SNG. Otherwise, WP:GNG and WP:ORG will continue to be the requirement for teams.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 13 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. m.o.p 04:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lothrop

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

WP:Bio Daffydavid (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject (J. Lothrop) fails WP:Anybio and WP:ENT. I stumbled on this page during the Wikipedia clean-up drive. Despite extensive searches for references I can't find any. Severe lack of notability would be a good summation.Daffydavid (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion. Just pointing to a WP policy without any discussion is insufficient for an AfD nomination. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Procedural Keep for the lacking of a nom's rationale for deletion.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original nomination was insufficient but nominator has returned with sufficient argument. Article is highly unlikely to survive a further properly-submitted nomination. Rubiscous (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lothrop is the subject of coverage in one source ([28]) and is mentioned in several others ([29] [30] [31]). But this does not constitute in-depth coverage of the subject. Striking my above support for speedy keep with an appropriate rationale. Thanks to Daffydavid for taking the time to change it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find it absolutely amazing that a beautiful woman in the public eye, who has hosted at least 145 episodes of the television series DVD on TV , and whose career can be verified, does not have more actual coverage than we have been able to find. She exists. She has a decent body of work. For the life of me, I simply cannot figure out why she does not have more media coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan University College

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

fails WP:ORG. a minor private college. the 10 gnews hits merely confirm its existence [32], no indepth coverage despite existing for 20 years. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - accredited degree awarding institutions have long been considered notable and this institution is accredited, as shown by searching here. TerriersFan (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is accredited to award degrees, that is enough for me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. m.o.p 04:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Representations of Haiti

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

The article contains much original research, and is written like an essay. It is written in the incorrect style, does not conform to WP:MOS. The article depends on 3 references. Shuipzv3 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:OR. poor sourcing. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy "This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts Amherst supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term." per the article's talk page. The article's creator shouldn't have put this into the main space so soon, but I don't think this article belongs in an AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops I didn't check the talk page, my bad. I'll withdraw my decision to delete this article. Shuipzv3 (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - per User:PaintedCarpet.-ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I would have to agree with PaintedCarpet. The article has very little references and is written like an essay. However, with more reliable sources, this article would pass, so I'm not going to vote delete yet. -- Luke (Talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per PaintedCarpet in hopes that the article can be improved before being brought back to the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the Campus Ambassador for the class and I am actively working with the instructor (who is also another Campus Ambassador) on fixing this article. Once we do that, I think it will be ready to be kept. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weld monitoring, testing and analysis

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

This topic does not seem to meet WP:N separate from welding. Zero RSs show this as a unique, defined (other than here) subject of coverage as defined here. It seems inevitably a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR problem. The current article is the result of a move from Signature image processing which at the time was seemingly being used to highlight the work of one associate professor (whose photo remains in the article). As a result of this discussion and this one, the article was moved. I think the second discussion indicates how this new article title and focus is the result of OR. Novaseminary (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (changed 12/9/11 from "Keep") The nominator exhibits obsessive battling behavior against me (much via mis-using policies) and follows me around, ramping it up whenever there is a dispute at a different article. IMO their participation at this article (where I have been doing rescue type work) is a result of that. Please see talk page history of the article for the history at this one. Briefly summarizing, it began when I brought up the idea of deleting the predecessor article. My concern was that that it was overly narrow and focused on one company's particular method of doing weld monitoring and testing, and that the generic-technical-sounding title was not such. Other editors disagreed, saying that it was a heavily sourced article on a legit topic. During ensuing conversations, it became clear that none of the editors had a coi. Over the months it was decided to redirect/expand this article into a broader, uncovered topic which is Weld monitoring, testing and analysis where the the subject of the previous article became merely a section in the new article. I sort of "warned" ahead of time that the other sections would temporarily be stubs, hopefully temporarily as other editors built it over time. I researched other articles, especially the Welding article to make sure that this topic was uncovered. Also it was clear that real coverage of Signature image processing at Welding which is a top level article on a even much broader topic would be ungainly/undue. Recently I rechecked with the 3 other editors (also see their talk pages on this)....100% agreed and I made the move. As anticipated the new sections were stubs. I posted a note at the talk page of the Welding (which, structurally, this is basically a sub-article of) article about this article and solicited editors. It has EXTENSIVE coverage in sources; a very huge technical area that is not covered in Wikipedia. I did some work on intro sentences on the other technologies and somewhat pared back the Signature image processing section. The nature of the material in there (description of awards won, listing of who uses it etc.) makes it still appear promotional at first glance, but I am unable to find anything to cut out that is not useful information. I was focused on text and I hadn't thought about the photo of the inventor until now; IMO it's a good idea to take it out and I just did so. I was planning to / offered to write a better technical explanation of the technology if a previous editor (tony1) would provide with some technical papers he has on this, but (see recent talk at their page) they no longer have those papers. I was planning to leave this article, the first phase of the rescue completed, as the topic is not of particular interest to me when Novasemianry assaulted it IMO as a result of disputes that I'm having with them elsewhere. First they PROD'ed it; when I removed the PROD they tag-bombed it, including an overall notability tag. I decided to stay a bit longer at the article to bolster it against Novaseminary's assault by adding some sourced material and sources to a few of the stub sections. It was immensely easy to find sources because there are an immense amount of sources on this. I just removed the notability tag; and (IMO, from hundreds of observations of their behavior over approx 2 years) as a result Novasemianry nominated it for deletion in retaliation/reaction. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks aside, what RSs establish that this formulation of the article subject is notable? I don't doubt that some of this could go in other articles, by why is the subject as you formulated it notable rather than WP:SYNTH? why not request it be userfied so you can have a chance to add sources that show this is a discrete subject that meets N? Novaseminary (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't personal attacks, they are comments on your behavior based on extensive knowledge. And you are again mis-quoting rules to do further battling behavior. (Weld) wonitoring, testing and analysis are very closely related and substantially overlapping topics. Trying to imply that putting those words into the title is a synthesis violation, or saying that wp:notability sourcing has to be for that particular word combination of the title are both ridiculous; such rules do not exist. And no, I do not want to userfy it; per the above I have no particular interest in this topic, I was just helping with an article rescue and I would have left the article already had you not assaulted it. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a whole army of professionals who do nothing but inspecting welds; while the sourcing may be improved, there can be no doubt that the topic is notable. --Lambiam 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But is that what this article is? If so, so it be redirected to Weld inspection? Novaseminary (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subset of the scope of this article.North8000 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It is the scope of the article that concerns me. How did you settle on these three particular aspects (monitoring, testing, and analysis)? Do the reliable sources treat these together as a distinct subject? As two or three distict subjects? Maybe it needs to be multiple articles. There just doesn't seem to be anything there to support this breakdown. I could write a well-sourced article about three singers, and title the article ”Singers A, B, C”. Assuming they each already have (or could have) their own articles, the subject of my combination would fail N and be SYNTH. Unless, of course, the RSs treat the particular subject as a topic itself (a la Delta blues, for example). We don't decide what particular combinations of subjects should be notable. We report on those that the RSs already cover as such. Novaseminary (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my hundreds of interactions with you over ~2 years, I consider this to be just more obsessive battling tactics, but I will answer it as if it were sincere. The logic of the choice is again that they are three closely related and often-overlapping topics, with just the right scope combined for an article, and which included the absorbed article which is clearly monitoring. The process was that I floated the idea for three months at the talk page (August 26th through November 22nd) with no objections or alternate suggestions. And before doing it, besides putting the "ready to roll" question on the talk page, I also wrote the three other editors at their talk pages and got their explicit agreement before proceeding. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process you went through is not terribly relevant for the discussion here. Do you have any RSs that treat these three together, perhaps noting they are closely-related and often-overlapping? Or is that statement SYNTH based on your expertise in the field? Even better would be a couple of RSs explicitly indicating why these three are considered together. That sort of material would make an article at this level of generality really useful, and lead me to withdraw the nomination (or at least change my !vote if other have already !voted delete). As it is now, there are only several examples of what you consider to fit within the scope of the article, and one really long, seemingly promotional example. But there are no sources suggesting this scope means anything. Novaseminary (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring my previous answers and posing manipulative questions that imply policies that do not exist; I am not answering again/further. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Novaseminary: The article is primarily concerned with methods for testing welds so as to assure their quality. If you feel so strongly that the title of the article is not quite appropriate for that topic, feel free to suggest a better title. That would be a far better course of action than to keep striving for its deletion. --Lambiam 22:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to settle on an alternative to deletion or be convinced that what seems to me to be OR is not. To the alternative to deletion end, I already suggested redirecting (now move over redirecting) to Weld inspection; removing the unsourced or SYNTH material that is not about Weld inspecting (or pasting any sourced, non-related material into another appropriate article). But North8000 seemed to object and hold on to the position that North's formulation of the lead and title is not SYNTH. That seems wrong to me. Another option might be for a move to Weld monitoring, if that is the predominant phrasing (perhaps with Weld inspecting redirecting there, too). The trio doesn't make sense, though. If there are synonyms, we should pick the most used and redirect the others. If they are different variants, we need some RS to establish the three have been treated together as a group and are thus not OR here. If the title and lead are not themselves OR (either by fixing them as a result of this AfD or finding RSs establishing as much), we can deal with the article's unsourced OR text in the editing process. But we can't make a non-notable SYNTH topic notable, even if every sentence but the SYNTH is well-sourced. Novaseminary (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novaseminary does not "feel" anything on this, this is their clever way of battling. Again, this knowledge is based on hundreds and hundreds of interactions of 2 years. When I have an editing dispute with them they follow me somewhere else and do something like and then pretend to sound wikipedian. The most recent disputes that caused this are when I told them off at Machine vision and Feast of the Hunters Moon; they followed me to those two in retribution for not giving in to their bullying at other articles etc. All starting from an initial clash about 2 years ago at the Carrie Newcomer article. They do this to other editors too, mostly newbies as I was then, I'm just one of the few that didn't succumb to it and leave Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you conceding the point that the article should be moved or deleted? Novaseminary (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is baseless and ridiculous. North8000 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable - one about which entire books may be written - see Quality assurance of welded construction, for example. The nomination does indeed seem to be disruptive per the reasons given in WP:SK#2. Warden (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A trainwreck of an article. Notability of an external topic is no excuse for filling an encyclopedia with random strings of unrelated words.

This began some time ago as an article on one specific technique for assessing welds, by measurement of arc welding parameters during welding. It has since morphed into a title that seems far broader, NDT vs. sectioning, nick-break tests, etc. but has lost what little structure it did have. This topic is not merely notable, it should probably be on the WP:VA vital articles list for engineering. However the lesson of the WP:IEP Pune project has been that you can't write articles by googling for a text string and pasting the results into a page. Writing an article on a large topic needs some prior understanding of a topic, in order to first structure its editorial plan (a naive editor can learn this much during research, but they still need to do so before publishing the article).

Good articles come from good article plans, that are then fleshed out with detail and research. I know of no way, and know of no examples, to take articles in this state and repair them piecemeal, to an adequate standard. The more usual result of that is something like boiler design or aircraft design process, where an article becomes bigger, but no better. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be a good article plan in this case? Please outline a suitable structure for the topic(s). Warden (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even playing your game, Colonel. This is a planning meeting, where we !vote on directions for future work. It's a big mistake to involve work (which takes time and effort) into such a meeting, because it delays and disrupts one's ability to plan.

I do not have such an article plan to hand. I certainly don't intend to write one before I consider I'm entitled to comment here. If I wished to write one, I'd start by pulling a couple of decent refs off the bookshelf (probably Gibson's Practical Welding and Houldcroft's Welding Processes) and quickly read their sections on weld testing. There's a clear three-way split between in-process monitoring, destructive and non-destructive testing. As the two listed are older books, they mostly focus on destructive testing as a means of training welders, the old approach being that a well-enough-trained welder didn't make mistakes. More modern approaches were to start using NDT, especially for post-war pressure systems. With the increase in automated welding in the decades of cheap, smart electronics, in-process monitoring becomes more important. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectionist approach was tried in Wikipedia's predecessor — Nupedia. In more than three years, it only produced 24 articles and so it failed. Wikipedia has a quite different model in which imperfection is explicitly tolerated. This evolutionary model works. For example, see the current featured article and its progression over time:

You yourself edited this article too. All you did was refine a category but every little helps. Our incremental method worked in that case; what is the difference in this case? Warden (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, isn't an article (even if a stub) the place where such planning and work usually occurs? North8000 (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, many good points there, and things that I have said myself. This really needs involvement by one or more persons who are an overall expert on this and I am not one. (please read my first comment for important background, including content on the non-SIP areas which I never intended or wanted to put in and only did so when the article got assaulted. But, in Wikipedian AFD terms, the question here is not it's quality level but only whether or not that title/subject should exist (= is wp:notable) as an article, and there you said yes, that "This topic is not merely notable, it should probably be on the WP:VA vital articles list for engineering." Could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be upgraded to being a WP:REDLINK. What we don't want is a toad of an article like boiler design, something that squats on the namespace and drives other editors away from writing the real article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has (until now) been a non-article since the dawn of wiki-time and nothing happened until this was created. So a non-article does not sound like a plan for creating the article. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I had planned to leave it as just stub sections (outside of the SIP section) until it got assaulted. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I was part of a related discussion about how to reframe/merge the article on signature image processing. Weld monitoring, testing and analysis is a large area that deserves a separate article—and is likely to be expanded in content over the next six months by North8000 and others. $Tony (talk)$ 11:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redirect. Titles with "and" in them usually show a lack of focus. "Weld inspection" (as proposed above) would seem to be a better title. The activity is notable and important - recall the failure of welded Liberty ships during WWII due to new welding techniques and inadequate inspection. The phrase "Weld inspection" gives 58000 hits in Google Books, so there should be no shortage of sources; "welding quality assurance" gives 10,000 books hits (but I expect substantial overlap). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable enough to me. Andy also raises great points. With a good redirect and clear lead, we can rework the article to meet policy. But without repurposing the article, or at least retitling it, that seems unlikly. Why are the couple of ”keepers” opposed to this? Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point at issue here is whether an admin should use the delete function or not. General issues of article development are not what AFD is for. For one thing, 7 days may not be enough time to agree on the right title. Others have been arguing about the title of yoghourt for more than seven years now! Warden (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we might be moving toward a consensus that would allow an alternative to deletion, which is of course appropriate to discuss here. You think the article purpose and title satisfies N. I do not. Bit if we can agree on some tweaking that satisfies us both, that is good, not bad. Despite your less than constructive personal attack in your ”speedy keep” above, I think there is room for consensus, maybe unanimity even. I hope you zeal for keeping articles won't you from entertaining any alternatives to deletion. Novaseminary (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there were a better title I'd be all for it. I waited 3 months for other ideas. But so far I haven't seen one. Much here is monitoring which is not inspection. I suppose two articles (inspection and monitoring) is a possibility, though there would be overlap / "which article" type dilemmas. But I think that the scope covered by the current title is ideal at this point. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable topic and not covered in Welding. --Kvng (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and covered in books. Too much valid content to shove anywhere else. Monitoring, testing, and analysis all go together, so its fine. Dream Focus 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update Last night Novasemianry gutted the article by in essence reversing the original consensused move/expansion. Took the SIP material out and put that back into a separate article. I reverted. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that SIP meets N on it own. I spun it of and left a summary with a main link on this article (WP:SUMMARY). If North thinks SIP fails N, he knows how to send it to AfD. If he disagrees with how I used summary style, he or anybody else can edit it. Novaseminary (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This disruptive editing is contrary to the consensused plan, further reinforced recently on the talk page. Stop and take it to talk to get a consensus.North8000 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to delete Signature image processing. Redirecting a notable topic to another article that may or may not be an umbrella to the notable topic is the same as deleting the article. That needs to happen at AfD, and not this AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. We are talking about you doing disruptive editing, undoing the redirect at the article that was was a part of the consensused process to roll the article into a broader article. North8000 (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable. The article is well done, but could be improved. I have added See also links in Welding and in Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as relevant articles. Issues with proper welding and inspection are very much in the public arena, especially where new pipelines are being built to transport natural gas in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Snell

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

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

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

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

Does not meet either general notability guideline or notability guideline for biographies, due to fundamental lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I always see this guy mentioned as one of the authorities on modern occultism, and his book SSOTBME cited as one of the must-reads. Do a Google Books search for his names Lionel Snell and Ramsey Dukes; a lot of mentions (and not just mere mentions) in different published sources establishes notability. (I'll make an effort to actually add some of those to the article as references.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just remember, only independent third-party reliable sources can be used to establish notability. No quantity of unreliable sources do. Yworo (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, certainly a number of those sources look reliable. Get a couple of the best added to the article and I'll withdraw the nom. Do be careful though, quite a few of them appear to be self-published, but not all. (I sure wish Google would list the publisher in the search results, it would save a lot of time and clicks). Yworo (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, looking more closely, there seem to be at most two or three sources that might qualify as reliable. Can't tell if these are also the ones with significant biographical content, as Google thinks I've looked too many pages recently. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, the sources Jeraphine Gryphon has supplied support notability and I have found further sources which are even better. Yworo (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Snell's work is cited widely in the occult world. If the nomination has been withdrawn, can we now close the AfD?--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just waiting for an admin to do so. Feel free to contact one to expedite. Yworo (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4-year plan

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

I came across this whilst clicking on "random article" a couple of times. It struck me as an article which was completely lacking in sources and written by an editor who has been blocked numerous times. I have had a look at Google and on first impressions, I am dubious to the notibility of this article, but I may be wrong. I want to know what the wider community thinks of this page.--Coin945 (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a WP:Essay - all OR. I found one reliable source for this. If someone can find a bunch more, I might reconsider my opinion (though the article would still have to be rewritten). Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the reliable source that you found?--Coin945 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Some possible sources here (4-year plan can refer to any plan that happens to be 4 years long. I narrowed the search to find the term in the conext of school):

--Coin945 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:OR. DaveApter (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Football_Ramble#Features and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dean Windass Hall of Fame

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

Unremarkable "hall of fame" feature from a podcast. No independent references, no significant claims of notability. Google search shows a lot of primary references and social media/blogs, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just one segment of a podcast rather than being a recognized award; there are no Google News hits for this hall of fame. The only source cited is the podcast's own web site. As a second choice, redirect to The Football Ramble. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had I known this had come from a blog, I would have nominated months ago. Phearson (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The podcast is notable, but this feature is not. SL93 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IT'S WORTH KEEPING OR ELSE I'LL BOYCOTT STUPID WIKIPEDIA FOR IT'S "WANNABE POWERFUL" MODS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.26.19 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — 78.149.26.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knightvox

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

I found nothing that shows that this musician passes WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web searches on "Knightvox" or "Bret Ewen" pretty much just find social media. Earlier versions of article assert that subject produced a remix of an M.I.A. non-hit, which I cannot verify, not that it really matters. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 04:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Son of the Sun (band)

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

Unremarkable rock band. No references, no significant claims of notability. Google searches show little coverage - "Son of the Sun" "planet records" shows only 5 unique results, 9 total. "Son of the Sun" "Zak Ward" shows only 147 unique, mainly primary/related sources and social media. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has significant coverage [33] [34]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is legitimate coverage, but I think it falls short of being substantial enough to justify an encyclopedia entry. The first is a preview in a small, local paper of the act's first concert. The second is a review in a college paper. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but in desperate need of cleanup. I'm a little confused. The article describes a band founded in Nashville, Tennessee in 1974. The article says they've "had a long and celebrated career. Most of their hit songs have been used time and time again in various advertisements, movies, television, and even political campaigns." If true, that would point toward notability, so I clicked the link in the article to their site to see if it contained more information about what ads, movies, etc. their music had been part of. The page I got, however, is for what appears to be a different band, founded in 2007 (according to their bio: [35]) in Buffalo, New York by people from New York and California. Adding to the confusion is that the Wikipedia article refers to Zack Ward (or Zak Ward, as the name is spelled both ways in the article) in the 1974 story, and the web bio refers to Zak Ward as well. I don't know if the stories of two bands of the same name got conflated, or if someone added apocryphal details to the Wikipedia article, or what. Before deciding this, it might be helpful to figure out what band we're talking about so we can look in the right places to see if they're notable or not. The band web site has a list of press mentions which point toward notability: they've been profiled in regional newspapers, reviewed in Juxtapoz, etc. Circumspect (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kudos to Circumspect for noticing something amiss here. This article is a stub about a non-notable band formed in 2007, with a fanciful hoax history created for it. I've removed the hoax bits, which were in fact the bulk of the article. Their actual bio, such as it is, can be found here. They do appear to be a real band, but coverage I've found is sparse and far below WP:N threshhold; the faint few hundred listens that they've amassed on last.fm in the past 6 months suggests I'm not missing anything. If and when they achieve notability in the future, we should have this article back. Until then, I will remember them primarily for this line that, alas, I deleted within one of the hoax sections: "Son of the Sun attributes its fame and prosperity to their fans, love of Mother Earth, and silk clothing." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Circumspect's excellent research. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EyeBeam (software)

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

Non-notable software item. Fails notability criteria. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [36], [37], and [38]. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only the second link constitutes "significant coverage", as the third doesn't meet reliability guidelines... Mythpage88 (talk) 09:16, 3 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Try this search too:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reuters says that's the flagship product of a notable company. [39] Google news archive search for their name and the name of their company, and you get over a hundred results [40] but I can't get it to filter out the press releases so its hard to sort through all of them. Seems like a notable product though. Dream Focus 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Barrett

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

Article fails GNG & PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no reliable sources, perhaps because Michelle Barrett is a fairly common name. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is plenty of evidence that the company exists; however, the reliable sources consulted, while mentioning what the company does, are mainly talking about projects that the company are involved with rather than directly about the company itself. A good number of sources are locked behind pay-to-view, so there may be other sources available which could be used to create an appropriate article. As written, the article shows borderline notability for the company, and what tips this over to deletion is that the community are uncomfortable with the manner in which the article is presenting the company - in particular that the article appears to be written in a promotional manner rather than a neutral, informative manner. The company may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but not as currently written. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.

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

No claim of notability made. Also appears to be WP:ARTSPAM - one of the major contributors, User:Tindaleoliver, clearly has a vested interest, and the other, User:Mchaumont, seems to be almost entirely devoted to raising the profile of the company on Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may explain who User:Mchaumont is: [41] Bazonka (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[WP:COMPANY] Steven Tindale, P.E., AICP is a widely recognized expert on impact fees. William Oliver, P.E., P.T.O. is a recognized expert on Florida’s growth management issues and was appointed in 2009 by Governor Charlie Crist to serve on the growth management committee. Both have authored articles and white papers that have appeared in transportation publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tindaleoliver (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:COMPANY (and the rest of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies))? I quote: "Wikipedia editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company", and "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". On this latter point, the references within the article do not seem to show sufficient notability, and a good number were written by Tindale-Oliver itself. Bazonka (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - blocking role account forthwith. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:ARTSPAM. Stubbleboy 23:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an absolute bucket-load of spammy redirects to this article too, which should also be deleted if and when the article goes. Bazonka (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JakTV

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

Appears to be a non-notable TV station. Cannot find significant coverage in third party sources and even the official website gives very little information that could be used to expand the article. JoshyDinda (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - As a local station, it does not seem to assert notability. However, as an Indonesian TV channel, systematic bias may make it difficult to find sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried checking the Indonesian Wikipedia article and the only source it uses is the official website. But perhaps some Indonesians could help provide some sources if they exist. JoshyDinda (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This appears to be a television station that originates programming, based on the names of programs, but I can't tell for sure; if it originates its own programming, it meets WP:BROADCAST at a similar level as full-power U.S. TV stations. Much of the programming seems to be home shopping for Jakarta (a capital city of 9.5 million), but it does seem to be Jakarta-specific, so presumably original to this station, rather than just a national shopping channel relay. Jakarta Bersepeda appears to be something about bicycling; Magazine Kementrian PU seems to be something from the Ministry of Public Works. --Closeapple (talk) 21:37, 4 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BROADCAST does not, to me, require that the station generate its own programming, merely that it is a full station and not a translator for a larger station. JakTV does not appear to be a translator from what I am able to gleam, therefore it seems to meet the notability brightline. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Difficult to source, but my research shows there are sources out there and its regularly covered as notable station in Jakarta. E.g., [42], [43].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. I'm not going to merge any content, as none of it is sourced. m.o.p 04:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qasidah modern

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

Possibly non-notable form of music. Tagged with notability concerns for over 2 years, can't find any significant mentions and even the Indonesian Wikipedia does not have its own article for this. JoshyDinda (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music of Indonesia, which already has a section on this. The only source I can find is [44] (half a page of coverage), which I don't think justifies a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect content as per Cerebellum. Doesn't need its own article, but a paragraph in music of Indonesia makes sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additional sources have been found. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metro (supermarket, Indonesia)

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

Article has been tagged for notability for over 3 years and there doesn't appear to be in significant coverage in third party sources. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another dull commercial realty company that isn't even in the supermarket business anymore. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article contains one reference. I've also found [45], and [46] in Indonesian. I suspect that there's more coverage in Indonesian, but not knowing the language limits my ability to search. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per coverage in reliable sources:

Metro supermarkets close after five-year decline. The Jakarta Post.
(Indonesian) Bagus, Whisnu (July 20, 2010). "Metro Business Rambah Property". Okezone.com. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
(Indonesian) Hapsari Lestarini, Ade (March 29, 2008). "Metro Supermarket Business Rolls Mat". Okezone.com. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A rename for this article to Metro Realty Tbk would be appropriate, per the company's current name ([47]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage has been found. Dream Focus 14:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irama

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

Appears to be a non-notable concept. No significant coverage in reliable sources and it isn't even mentioned on the gamelan article. So proposing possible deletion or redirect/merge to gamelan article. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the myriad reliable sources found by Google Books. Just the first two of these sources demonstrate very clear notability, both being from university publishers and having many pages of coverage of the subject. Not being mentioned in the gamelan article is simply an indication that that article is incomplete, not that this one should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added five citations and two of the many books on the subject. Irama is a core concept in Gamelan (it is linked from many other WP articles on Gamelan), is defined in many books (and websites), and is a necessity for students and players to understand Gamelan music. The topic is certainly Notable. And we should not constantly be deleting good worthwhile articles of this nature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a brief note in Gamelan itself, with link to Irama and a citation. But the concepts were already richly linked together via the other articles on Gamelan music. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If Irama is a core concept of Gamelan, considering the length of the article, it seems it could be easily incorporated as a main section of that article. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 17:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's core to the musicology of Gamelan, which in turn is one aspect of a complex subject - the culture, the repertoire and so on. Reasons why we should keep the article rather than attempting a merge:

Firstly, there is scope for more detail on Irama - we are not considering just the text now, but what it should be - in particular it would be helpful if it contained some tables or diagrams showing what it consists of in terms of beats (as in some of the referenced websites).

Secondly, why should we merge Irama, but not Gong ageng, Kendang, Kenong, Ladrang, Ompak, Gatra, ... etc etc? Why should all elements of a rich, complex subject be in one article? No, this is a Wiki, a hypertext, and it's convenient, accessible and correct to have a network of articles covering different aspects of a topic. Irama is a notable topic and deserves its own article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (disclaimer: original author, sorry I was lazy about citations back in those days, thanks Chiswick Chap for adding some). I argue against a merge, because it is a core concept in Javanese gamelan, not all other forms (which the gamelan article provides an overview of). The best way to clarify the diverse structures (and instruments, etc.) that appear in the various kinds of gamelan is to have a rich hypertext organization that is available for appropriate links. We obviously do this with distinctive rhythmic techniques that appear in European music, instead of merging them into the most typical genre they appear in (see Category:Rhythm). To do otherwise with the well-documented tradition of Javanese gamelan reflects a bias. Also, another great possibility with hypertext would be a link to similar concepts that happen in other musical forms, like fangman jiahua in China or thaw in Thai music (see this mention of irama in a book about Chinese music). I realize we don't yet have articles on those, and maybe won't for a while (I don't have time to write them right now), but we should, and when we do, it will be nice to link directly to an article on irama instead of expecting people to dig it out of a section of a much larger article. Rigadoun (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion (student movement)

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

Obscure organization, founded by a non-notable leader of a non-notable group; unsourced and without credible assertions of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For an article to be in this state after five years suggests there isn't much else to do with it. No independent sources. Notability not established.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unfortunately this is only a stub. I think it was created to be a "house church" type movement for students. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have searched for reliable sources and have been unable to uncover any substantial reliable source coverage. This does not appear to pass notability requirements. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the AFD nomination was rather hurried after the article's restoration – see independent sources cited at WP:UNDELETE. I have now incorporated these briefly, although more information could be added from them. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears, judging by a quick spin around the Googleverse, that this is an international Methodist youth organization closely linked to large numbers of United Methodist Churches. I'm not going to dig for sources at this juncture, but bear in mind that this is a stub and there is adequate sourcing showing to meet a basic level of verification. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:NONPROFIT. It is active in the US and UK, and was once active in Australia. The sources in the article are (just barely) enough to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT. -- 202.124.74.252 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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