Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 January	11 January >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Box Design Group

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

The article is about an architectural firm that is of borderline notability: there is definitely one source that is reliable and independent (the Telegraph). But, that's about it. There is a blog piece on the Estates Gazette website but it is only incidental that the company is used to illustrate the topic at hand; it could quite happily be substituted with another company to make exactly the same point.

The other sources used in the article are reliable enough to establish the facts they are certifying, but they do not establish notability as they are not independent, secondary sources. In terms of finding other sources for the article, there's nothing on Google News, and I can't find anything that goes to satisfy WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been tracking this one for a while & have never been able to advance further than Tom Morris. At various times the article has taken on a distinctly promotional POV and/or a somewhat hagiographic stance regarding the founder of the Group ... but no real depth to it at all. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It strikes me that this is an advert for a NN firm of architects. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it was used by Northern Rock 86.173.156.43 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you sourced this, notability is not inherited. You would need some pretty good write-ups from multiple, independent sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Prof. Buchmann but there is a clear consensus to delete this article. Please don't take offense to this. As it has already been mentioned, there are some truly despicable people with articles and there are some amazing people without articles or whose articles have been deleted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Buchmann

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

Subject may not have enduring notability to be included in an encyclopedia; main author User:Prof. Buchmann (talk) may have conflict of interest; author objects to proposed deletion. Zzarch (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though subject has published research, there needs to be some secondary coverage of his work. See WP:42. Also, sources? I see none to WP:NOTE. Phearson (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a mechanism for evaluating scientists and scholars who have not received secondary coverage - it is WP:ACADEMIC, which evaluates the person's contributions to the field based in part on how often their work is cited by others. In this case, Dr. Buchmann's work is not cited enough to establish him as a leader in his field, and his academic positions do not meet the requirements either. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actual notability not asserted. JFW | T@lk 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC. ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a rather unaccomplished (for the standards of wikipedia) dentist and a spam article with a ton of studies link but not matter to the article =(.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not aware whether my contributions in the "talk" section have been noticed, I add them to the "deletion" discussion

1. Nomination: Second- or third-party nominations frequently come from politics, industry, associations or societies with strong interests (economic, strategic) into the nominated person. My achievements and merits in periodontology over the last 2 decades are resulting from independent scientific research. With the W:D. Miller Award the research was honored in Germany. My scientific paperwork became rapidly published by notable U.S. publishers (see references).

2. Conflict of interest: Scientific independence is an essential setting for creative research. My article encourages independency in life, career and research as the best principle for lifetime achievements.

3. Notability: At prior, I will not interfere with Wikipedias regulations for notability. If people living an extrordinary life are not worthy becoming designated for nomination, I will surrender. Accepting my accomplishments in life (4 daughters), career (5 universities, Interim Director in Muenster, Germany) and research (refer to publications and 2 german textbooks), Wikipedia will honor independency, creativity and engagement.

From this points you may reconsider the nomination and the proposed deletion of the article.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't take offense to this nomination for deletion. Wikipedia has a fairly objective standard for article inclusion, and it does not attempt to judge the subject of an article positively or negatively. Some truly awful people have articles on Wikipedia, after all. You stated, "If people living an extrordinary life are not worthy becoming designated for nomination, I will surrender." That is indeed the case. The basic standard for determining a subject's notability (in other words, whether a subject merits inclusion) is coverage. Do reliable sources discuss the subject at length in a meaningful manner? It's possible for a person or thing to be very important but be relatively unknown. In those cases, Wikipedia can't have an article about it, for practical reasons. This encyclopedia, like every encyclopedia, is an aggregate of data. It can only provide information drawn from other sources. It does not introduce new information. That can be done by magazines, newspapers, books, TV shows, radio, other web sites, etc. Once published in such a manner, then that information can be used to have an article here. That is the only way for the information here to be even halfway credible. So please, don't take this badly, it's not a criticism of yourself, just possibly a reflection of the fact that what you've done has been low profile. -- Atama頭 21:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful for your compassionated reply!

From your explanations I deduct that an article in Wikipedia America - is this correct? - has to be validated with informations from external reliable sources like magazines, newspapers, web sites etc. with the U.S.. However, if Wikipedia gets entries only from the english web, predominantly within the United States, it will not be surprising that you won’t find enough coverage since my current work and living environment is Europe. Then I understand that achievements allowing coverage in Wikipedia Europe, esp. single european countries, do not enable an article in Wikipedia America.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is the English Wikipedia, not Wikipedia America—sources are not evaluated based on their geographic locations. Secondly, it is my understanding that notability can and often is established by non-English sources, although some coverage by English sources is ideal. Nonetheless, while I do not wish to devalue your work, I feel that there is insufficient evidence in either English or non-English sources to establish why an article on you fits the inclusion standards of Wikipedia. If you can provide sources to the contrary, please do so; it would be appreciated. Zzarch (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now condensed my article into a brief and modest entry. Due to rapid development and changes of the web in the last decade, achievements before the millennium are not available on the web or have been deleted with multiple updates of sites. If appreciated, I will further add certifications and letters of references as additional sources to this article.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Nothing personal Professor--GrapedApe (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold. According to wikipedias inclusion criteria WP:PROF the author meets points 1, 2 and 7:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources: See current entries in PubMed or in the articles history from Jan 12, 2012.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: W.D. Miller Award 1998, the highest possible honor for german research scientists in that decade.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: Textbook Patientengerechte Parodontologie, published by the renowned Thieme Medical Publishers Group.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMamba

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

I am unable to find any notability for this software. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything, either. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neither did I. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and per copyright issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Affections (band)

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

I cannot find substantial RS coverage of this band, and they are not listed on AllMusic. Zero refs. Tagged for notability, and zero refs, a year ago. Created by a 1-article-ever-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not coming up with any coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 07:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This band is almost certainly notable on the strength of their one single and gigs in Sydney. No-one here will have the resources to demonstrate it, however. A forum post references a feature in the notable Australian magazine Countdown, July '81. The single goes for $40 US these days. Their label released the first two INXS albums. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on notability, I'm going to suggest this article ought to be a delete as a copyright violation, given that early versions of the page are a copy of text from the band's MySpace page http://www.myspace.com/theaffections . Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would recommend reading the linked record company bio. It paints a picture of an Aussie pub band from the early 80s that failed to become notable. No albums, one single released, with no evidence of sales or airplay. Other than the record company bio, no sources provided, and seemingly nothing substantial from a WP:RS source from web search. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should not be deleted. Although this band had a rather short life span they had a significant following at the time. They supported some of the biggest Aussie bands of the era including Cold Chisel and The Angels at venues such as Sydneys iconic Hordern Pavillion. There is info on the band here http://theaffections.tripod.com/online/. The band members have gone on to achieve significant success since then - Bass player George Ellis is now the conductor of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and conducted the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympic Games to an audience of over 3 billion people ref- http://www.georgeellis.com.au/bio.php . Brad Hayward wrote, directed and produced the Australian film Occasional Course Language and the Emy award winning tv series Scorched http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177061/ . Greg Tolhurst writes books that are sold and studied worldwide and described on Amazon.com as 'It is not only the best book ever written on its subject, but among the best monographs dealing with legal doctrine published in recent years'. Rob Smith has written and produced six albums and there is reference to these as well as The Affections on his website http://www.robsmith.com.au/biog.htm

The Affections have apparently reunited and produced an album to be released in early 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKeeper14 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inflight

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

This band appears to be (as best I can tell) different from the band that is reflected in Allmusic.[1] I'm having difficulty finding substantial RS coverage of it. The article, also, has zero refs. Tagged for notability and for lack of refs for well over 2 years. Created by a 1-article-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per noms findings. Would make a great dab page though. (in-flight mags, in-flight crew etc.).--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus, that no deletion is required. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guinn Run

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the context of streams, we've been through this before and it's been established that every stream is notable, provided that there are references. Gjs238 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has historical significance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a geological feature, this historically significant stream is worthy of its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus, that no deletion is required. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McMillan Woods

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search shows it's mentioned in plenty of sources, and its notability extends beyond Gettysburg, as it was the site of two camps with their own articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Peach Orchard

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable battlefield for a notable historical battle. Really? - [2], [3], [4], [5]. Very odd nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical significance makes it notable. I'm puzzled by this nomination. Moriori (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~per WP:NGEO~~; there's a ton written about the place. A WP:TROUT to an editor whose "main interest" is the Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obvious notability. CallawayRox (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well documented article about details of a crucial battle of the American Civil War. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Per sources already in the article, and links above provided by User:SL93. Topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per all of the above. Time to stop wasting time on this afd.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems a no-brainer: one of the most hotly contested portions of one of America's most significant battlefields. A lot of these Gettysburg-place articles merit deletion for their lack of independent notability, but this is emphatically not one of them. Ammodramus (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time of the nomination, it already had ample coverage found and listed in the reference section. Dream Focus 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion for this and many other articles being deleted is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Gettysburg_articles Maybe some of the deletion nominations should be combined. Dream Focus 21:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merging may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pitzer Run

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Documentation is extensive for the geography of the Gettysburg battlefield, so this and other details of the battlefield should be kept. There are a great many articles on streams in Pennsylvania and other states already. One more is fine by me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the article, and if references say it was an important ___location, then it is notable for a Wikipedia article. Nothing gained by destroying information like this. Dream Focus 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - its a stream only of note in regards to Gettysburg battlefield - You really can 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has plenty of historical significance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geological features are notable for inclusion, especially with the addition of historical importance.Grillo7 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus, that no deletion is required. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plum Run (White Run)

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has historical significance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a geological feature, this historically significant stream is worthy of its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus, that no deletion is required. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spangler Spring

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~per WP:NGEO and~~ for its part in the Battle of Gettsyburg[6][7]. Renamed Spangler's Spring. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a geological feature, this historically significant spring is worthy of its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Proposed merging may be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spangler Spring Run

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to being a stream, which are generally considered notable, it also has historical significance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a geological feature, this historically significant stream is worthy of its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merging may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Run (Rock Creek)

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the context of streams, we've been through this before and it's been established that every stream is notable, provided that there are references. Gjs238 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as historic landform topic of article meets WP notability criteria. Target for Today (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable as a geographic feature with additional historical significance, and there appear to be pleny of references. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warfield Ridge

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge if necessary. I waded through a number of the gbooks hits, which are impressive in number and sufficient in substance IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fighting took place here nor did anything significant happen, so see absolutely no reason why this should be any more notable than any other piece of high ground in Pennsylvania. 76.7.231.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merging may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Run (Rock Creek)

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has historical significance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus, that no deletion is required. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winebrenner Run

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the context of streams, we've been through this before and it's been established that every stream is notable, provided that there are references. Gjs238 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever apart from that associated with Battle of Gettysburg, so hydrologic and geographic data is largely irrelevant. Role in battle too minor to sustain a free-standing article of any length. If kept, this article would remain a minimal stub, whose primary function would be to irritate readers who clicked on the blue link at one of the main Gettysburg articles, and found no useful new information to justify their digression from the main article. Ammodramus (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See nothing in the article which says why this is so notable. Checked a couple books on Gettysburg and none of them mention it as playing a major role in the battle. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and the others for which we have no more than a paragraph. Each such paragraph should be included in Gettysburg Battlefield. Each redirect can be converted back into a free standing article when or if it gets enough good material.

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has historical significance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a geological feature, this historically significant stream is worthy of its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow horizon

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

Almost CSDed but there seems to be some assertions of notability. This seems to be a completely non-notable band, with no reliable references. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, A7, picture is Nickelback, only ref provided is nickelback, Cannot find anything to assert notability for this band. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture is Nickelback, it can probably be deleted per A7 or G3. Feel free to nominate it as such. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If he plays a pro game or more sources are found that satisfy GNG, this article can be restored. Will userfy/incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Elmore

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

Does not pass WP:ATHLETE; has not played in a major league game. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ looks like his college football career passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might have been willing to support a keep if he were all-conference, but he only made it as high as second team. I could be swayed to keep if there is more there that shows he meets WP:GNG. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. None of it focuses on him as an individual. Clearly does not meet the notability criteria for college athletes given at WP:NSPORTS. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NSPORTS is "inclusive" and not "exclusvie" -- see WP:ABELINCOLN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that all of the coverage is routine, I still don't see the signficant, independent coverage required. So if he doesn't qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS, how is he notable? I'll admit I don't see the point of your ABELINCOLN reference. Papaursa (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because as I stated above, it looks to me like his college career passes WP:GNG. We obviously disagree on that, and that's okay. The point on the ABELINCOLN essay is that NSPORTS is meant to be an "inclusive" standard, but not meeting NSPORTS does not automatically mean a subject should be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL consensus was clear before I struck my !vote.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Papaursa that the coverage is routine and does not satisfy the GNG; WP:ATHLETE is also obviously unsatisfied (never played a game as a pro athlete). cmadler (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He led the Pac 10 in sacks the last two years and is second on Arizona's all time sack list. He was drafted into the NFL (something I believe automatically makes somebody notable) and is currently on the 49ers practice squad. I think that makes him notable enough.--Yankees10 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being drafted is not currently considered enough to create a presumption of notability. See WP:ATHLETE, which gives Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the third American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. as the only option (aside from GNG) for a presumption of notability for professional football players. cmadler (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Scary Movie (film series)#Scary Movie 5. Note that the article was already redirected as per WP:BOLD by an IP user, and that this is the same redirect as Scary Movie 5. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Movie 5 (2012 film)

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

Article about an unreleased film which I can find no references for, plus issues with WP:CRYSTAL. The only mentions have been part of lists of upcoming films - this establishes the reality of the upcoming film, but not its notability. Unless and until reliable sources can be found, we shouldn't have an article on the film. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Scary Movie (film series)#Scary Movie 5. Article has no content, but could be a useful search term. Casting news, etc can be added to that page until it starts filming and achieves notability. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estadi Mahonés

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's an orphan. Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Its an orphan" is a statement about other articles, not this one, so is certainly in no way relevant to a deletion discussion. And I see no reason not to merge this to the article on the club that plays at this stadium, CF Sporting Mahonés (as the nominator should have found before nominating), rather than delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The usual "reprimands" at AfD. I did look at the CF Sporting Mahonés article, which says they play at a redlinked Estadio Bintaufa.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be contradicted by the sources found by clicking on the word "news" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that although you complain about me not doing "my work", you haven't taken the trouble to fix the article based on these sources. What's so amazing at these AfDs is those editors who don't seem to care how long unsourced garbagey articles remain on the encyclopedia (this particular article isn't the best example of that). The articles can be tagged for years and be an embarrassment to read, but if one nominates them for deletion, the nominator (not the creator, not the editors who've touched the article since creation) gets shot. Maybe WP:GARBAGE ought to be a standard in addition to WP:N. My rant aside, I have tried to pay closer attention to the complaints of some editors, and I recall doing searches before nominating this article. The Spanish part, of course, didn't help, but, still, I obviously didn't search carefully enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm trying to figure out whether the team CF Sporting Mahones playes at the Estadi Mahones or not. I looked at the website of the team ([8]), and found this (Google-translated): "Play their matches at the Estadio Municipal de Mahon, located in the Complex of Bintaufa. It has a capacity of approximately 3,500 spectators and its surface is natural grass. Since its inception, this has always been its stadium." The original Spanish is this: "Disputa sus encuentros en el Estadio Municipal de Mahón, situada en el complexo de Bintaufa. Tiene una capacidad aproximada de 3.500 espectadores y su superficie es de hierba natural. Desde su creación, este ha sido siempre su estadio." Assuming that Estadio Municipal de Mahon is the "Estadi Mahones" and also the structure in the picture in the article, then at a minimum I would think the title should be changed, assuming the team is using the right name for its stadium. More important, let's assume the stadium in the article is the stadium of the team. Does that in and of itself make the stadium notable and deserving of its own article? Unless there is something special about it (independent coverage as a structure), why shouldn't it be merged (redirected as well) to the team's article?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why does this keep getting relisted? I suggested merging, the nominator agreed, and nobody else has suggested deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to San Soo. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy H. Woo

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

This article has only one reference and it's not independent. There are no sourced claims of notability. Obviously he's notable if someone can provide an independent source that shows he brought kung fu to America. Jakejr (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no expertise in martial arts, so I will refrain from making a firm recommendation at this time. That being said, a Google Books search shows what appears to me, at first glance, to be some possibly reliable book sources discussing him as a pioneer in teaching kung fu in the United States. Input by a topic expert would be welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of hits in Google Books and the worst case is that we'd merge to San Soo rather than delete. Warden (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Soo The San Soo article already contains the relevant information about Jimmy Woo's impact on San Soo in the U.S. and he doesn't appear to be notable for anything else. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Soo Every source I found him mentioned in was in relation to San Soo. Since there's already a section in that article about him, a redirect seems most reasonable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a Kung Fu instructor is not notable. Claim that he is credited for bringing the art of San Soo to America in not verifiable. Coverage is not independent. Not finding significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Scottdrink (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woo receives significant coverage in "Attack Strategies of San Soo Kung Fu" from Black Belt and "25 Years with San Soo's Jimmy H. Woo" from Inside Kung Fu (available online at [9]). Since he passes the GNG, there is no reason to delete or redirect. Goodvac (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Soo The articles mentioned focus on San Soo or simply say he's been in the same ___location for 25 years and taught lots of students. That's not sufficient to pass WP:GNG (in my opinion). Mdtemp (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Taplin-Ross

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear notable based on his college career, and is not notable as a pro athlete until he actually plays in a game as a pro athlete (at least 9 months away, if it ever happens). cmadler (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as I hate to say it, being a diehard Cowboys fan, I feel an article on a football player doesn't belong on Wikipedia until he's at least made a practice squad, or unless he was notable in college. Since he was not very notable in college, and he has not been on a practice squad or active roster, it should be deleted. RevanFan (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the Cowboys fans don't want a piece of this one, I can't see any reason to keep it for now. That could change later if sources or events happen of course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Universitas Nasional. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universitas Nasional faculty

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

Was Prodded, removed by the creator. I'm nominating because the Prod concerns remain... and I'm also concerned about this editor... there was an obvious factual error introduced at George Washington University and there's a lot of deleted page creations. I don't think there's any notability for this page, and all of the individuals listed are redlinked (from prod), but at the very least I'd like more eyes on this page/set of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had to CSD multiple articles multiple times (as in recreations). Each time, the author failed to make an assertion as to why any of the subjects listed in the article are notable. I'm concerned this editor is associated with the subject of the article. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge Some of the people at least are unquestionably notable: the rectors. Whether the others are will need to be tested. But our routine practice is we do not make separate lists of notable faculty, but use lists of notable people associated with the university unless the number is very large, and if the number is as small as this, a section within the article is the usual solution. I suggest that the university's effort would be better directed towards making more informative web pages of its own: I was unable to see figures even the size of the university. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept or merged, I would urge that -- per WP:LISTPEOPLE -- all entries that do not have a wp article, and that do not have independent RS refs supporting their notability and their fitting the criteria of this list, be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG and past practice. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge blue-linked and ref'd entries. Per above comments. No reason to merge material that violates wp:LISTPEOPLE.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only claim of notability being 15 minutes of fame on a radio station. Doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. v/r - T P 02:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jezus Factory Records

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

Not notable, token mentions by BBC only. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 03:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "token mentions" are being the independent label of the week on a BBC national radio program, with consequent ~15 minutes of coverage. There's nothing wrong with the other source in the article at nomination either, depite the nom's "BBC only". Thirdly, their samplers have been reviewed [10] [11] and they release notable work by notable musicians. Sufficient to keep. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The substantial majority of edits by 86.44.31.213 are arguments for "keep" in AfDs, sometimes continuing at length, and sometimes in cases with no "keep" support from anyone else at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

i took the trouble to deal with this strange smear here. 86.44.47.170 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being that your claims don't match the links. The links in the article (and yours) don't pass criteria by themselves. Being named "indie label of the week" is the only claim of notability, and generated a single line, one line, of text in the article linked. The "two" references from BBC are actually the same article. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a clue what you're talking about before a charge like "your claims don't match the links". I'll leave it at that. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that what Dennis Brown says is exactly true. There is just one reference to one BBC page, though the reference is repeated so that it looks like two references, and that reference has just a one line mention of Jezus Factory (not even a full sentence). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and failing WP:NMUSIC. Reading through, there's not a specific mention for labels but one gets the spirit of notability for music. No one is disputing the existence of this label but it is not cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. --Ifnord (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ideal Pakistan

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

Zero refs. Lacks rs coverage. Tagged for notability since February. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:07, 8 January 2012 (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) 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center for vein restoration

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

possibly qualifies for A7/G11, but I thought I would give it the benefit of the doubt of a more formal process.

One RS link, to a one paragraph link saying it won a reader-vote for "best vein care" by bethesda magazine.

Won "marcom" award, which is not notable enough to have a wiki page.

I personally vote speedy delete. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant news coverage found; awards claimed are not significant enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment note that this article by the same editor had previously been speedied under a slightly different title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)

Looks like it was actually deleted twice under that name (with capitalization). If the decision here is "delete", we might consider salting all versions of the name. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I posted the original notability tag based on it being an early draft, though I was thinking proposing it for Speedy as Spam then. Since it hasn't grown notable since, I'd say delete. Bagheera (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, sounds like an ad to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company, borderline spam RadioFan (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Chaos

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

No indication of notability. Routine sports coverage of an event featuring only a handful of notable fighters for a non-notable mixed martial arts promotion company. Limited references don't clearly establish why this particular event should be deemed encyclopedic. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I can find don't have much more than simply fight results. Fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, I can see no reason why this should be included in Wikipedia. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports coverage that fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig M. Scott

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

Per WP:POLITICIAN, unelected candidates are not notable just for being candidates, but must generally either win election to office, or have already been notable enough for other things that they could have had (or already had) an article before they ran for office. That said, he seems to have done enough work in the past that the possibility may exist that he meets another notability guideline (which is why I'm opting for AFD instead of prod), but that work is still referenced to coverage of his nomination, rather than to older references which demonstrate that he was garnering sufficient coverage to confer notability for it at the time it was happening. In fact, the only reference cited here that was published before January 9, 2012 is his faculty profile on the webpage of the institution he works for, which is a primary source and therefore cannot demonstrate notability. I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination if someone can WP:HEY it up to a keepable standard — and, of course, he can certainly have an article if he wins the by-election — but this is still a delete in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bearcat. Other than the fact that he is a law professor at UofT, he is not notable enough to warrant a page. If (and when) he wins the by-election, we can re-add him, but for now, the page should be relegated to someone's sandbox. Bkissin (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In future, if you're going to assert that an article passes a notability guideline, kindly make note in your comment of the fact that you've added improved sources to the article; it's those improved sources that change things, not the assertion by itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Stiff Richards

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

A quick search for this band suggests that they are defunct, and were never particularly notable. Their label has been sold, and their reported current label - skunk records - doesn't list them as an artist. At best, it rates passing mention on web sites dedicated to past members. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything on these. They don't even seem to be as notable as Stiff Richards, one of the groups The Uptones were while on hiatus. Since they were most active before 1990 it's possible sources exist that have not made it online. The claims of covers by notable groups are intriguing. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Most of what I found was about the other similarly-named group.--Michig (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not holding it against them that they are defunct -- we do cover dead people, and de-populated towns -- but I can't find sufficient significant RS coverage on them. Agree w/Mr. Music IP's other comments, but conclude as he does that we need RS support here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as template was erroneously placed on the talk page instead of the article. Depending on the results of the article's AFD, the talk page will be kept or deleted right alongside it, so continued consideration of this as a separate discussion is not needed. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Stiff Richards

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

A quick search for this band suggests that they are defunct, and were never particularly notable. Their label has been sold, and their reported current label - skunk records - doesn't list them as an artist. At best, it rates passing mention on web sites dedicated to past members. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - put the notice on the wrong page. My bad. I will add the message to the article page. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Country Squire Diner-Restaurant

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

Unsourced; quick source search came up with nothing. Also, non-notable, and most certainly fails notability guidelines for business entities Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per criteria A7. Importance/notability not asserted. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural keep~~ you can't have a speedy deletion template and an AfD at once.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can. Happens fairly regularly. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where is that written? That's news to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Does not come close to meeting criteria A7. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I added some sourcing from the Philadelphia Inquirer so it is no longer unsourced.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you know I think this little place has to be given a chance to meet the GNG and it's not a contentious or unverified subject if not we should consider merging it toBroomall, Pennsylvania.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the links go to a site called "Dealyo" which looks to be like a Groupon type of site. Not sure how those links add any notability. Also, you already added a Keep earlier so a 2nd one wasn't necessary. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add a second one I changed my vote from "procedural keep" to simply "keep" and striking out the original one, admonishing me for that is unnecessary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not appear to meet notability requirements: WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Peacock (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two articles from the city paper do not add up to enough coverage. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effloresce (Physics)

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

Looks like an OR new theory. No sources to back it up, and a search turned up nothing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OR essay. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, amateurish, clap-trap. Hairhorn (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete as unsourced original research and per the guideline on things that were made up. In other, more humorous words, see WP:CB. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Baia Mare. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Baia Mare

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

This article just has an infobox and no content. Everything in the infobox can be seen by looking at the image or at Baia Mare. Oddbodz (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it has leading section and some content. Can it be removed from the deletion list? --ES Vic (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that this infomation should just be moved to Baia Mare and the article deleted. Its not a particuarly notable coat of arms that deserves its own article. Oddbodz (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though Merge into Baia Mare would be appropriate if the article is considered in isolation.M1rtyn (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is part of a larger body of work on Romanian heraldry with a number of contributors over a long period, for which the vast majority of Coats of Arms have been created with their own pages. Rather than continuing this discussion in isolation, I would recommend withdrawing this deletion request, and instead nominate multiple pages for deletion, including the articles for coats of arms for all Romanian County capitals, as this would likely generate more discussion.

Perhaps a request should be made of WP:HV to provide quidelines on Notability? A brief review of Coats of Arms of other counties indicates that no other editiors have considered stand-alone articles for heraldry at this sub-state level appropriate.M1rtyn (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Mare page. Not worth a page by itself. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Queendom of Eros

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

Fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. Only claim of notability is that the studio that made this porn movie gave it a promotional award. No GNews or GBooks hits on the English- or Japanese-language versions of the title. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though I question the legitimacy or validity of the specific award, that is not a criteria for notability under WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG. I have no idea if moodyz is considered a major award in its field but a reliable source has reported on it.[12]. Further, the movie has received coverage in 2 different articles from that same source[13][14] and has had independent review.[15] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not an "independent review"; that's a product page from a DVD retailer.[16] The other "references" are from "All About Inc", an advertising service[17] that seems to resemble examiner.com more than it does a reliable news organization. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hullabaloo is not quite correct about these sites. AllAbout.com is essentially a competitor to Yahoo in Japan which, like Yahoo, makes much of its money through advertising. Like Yahoo it also publishes genuine news articles as well as its own content (one of its main selling points is hiring "experts" to give "individual" information on products, events, etc.). The two cited by Morbidthoughts are not press releases, but authored by Kemuta Ōtsubo, who is a journalist specializing on AV who writes for some of the major weekly magazines. I don't know much about the Kobooks site, but it should be pointed out that the review can look independent because, if you read the Japanese, it actually criticizes this DVD. Michitaro (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NFILM. Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As explained above, I don't think Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's arguments against the citations introduced by Morbidthoughts hold, and so I am inclined to agree with Morbidthoughts' argument that this DVD had significant coverage. It does make sense as well: this was produced by a major AV producer to commemorate their fifth anniversary and was thus publicized more than their average DVD. I think the articles by Ōtsubo are just examples of what coverage there was. One problem with judging the notability of AV is that independent coverage tends to be in the print media, which we can't access. But this seems to be getting more than the usual. Michitaro (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what sites are reliable sources for this sort of thing? Someone who speaks Japanese will have to look for reviews. I don't see anything in English. Was it officially released in the English language anywhere? Dream Focus 07:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another adult DVD. Not convinced that this passes WP:NFILM. While at first glance, the article appears to have an impressive list of references, on closer inspection, none of them constitute reliable third-party coverage. --DAJF (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NFILM. What makes this stand out from all other similar titles? --Ifnord (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim to significance is an award it awarded it's self (that sounded better in my head than it looks on screen, but you get the gist). Mt king ^(edits) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theaghenis Dhionysatos

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

Article about footballer who may possibly pass WP:NSPORTS - if the Greek third level is considered fully-pro, but doesn't appear to have any chance of meeting WP:GNG and this person has only spent one season at a possibly notable level of football. I found a few regional league (fourth level) match reports that mention his name and one reliable source that mentions a match where he competed against his brother in the regional league, but I can't see how that is multiple instances of significant coverage. Let's use common sense because this article will never be more than it is now. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sure a Greek editor could find out information about his career prior to 2007-08 (when he ws 32/33) - there's a full 15 years missing! Perhaps notability can be found there? GiantSnowman 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I found no mentions of him at RSSSF.com (which has pretty decent coverage of lower-tier Greek football in the early 2000s) and the only mentions he gets at EPAE.org are from his brief stint in the Gamma Ethniki with Aiolikos. If he played in the first or second level of Greek football, surely we could find mentions of him at places like contra.gr or enet.gr when searching his Greek-alphabet name - but I cannot find anything. Jogurney (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTY: "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" - WP:FPL class the Greek Football League 2 as a fully-pro league. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 30 appearances in a fully-pro league indicates notability. Article should be improved, not deleted. Giant Snowman 13:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There isn't a source included that indicates he made 30 appearances that season. The article's only source lists the team sheet for a single match. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. What does the asterisk next to his name mean? Captain? Giant Snowman 13:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean captain. If you do this search, you can find a number of match reports showing Dionysatos (if this article is kept, it ought to be moved to Theagenis Dionysatos) playing in the third-level of Greek football during the 95-96, 97-98 and 07-08 seasons. I have no idea how many matches he played in total, but it's probably close to 30 (yet, there is no other source to verify the totals - just a bunch of match reports). I realize the article passes NSPORTS, but I'm not sure what can be done to improve the article except citing a bunch of match reports (which do nothing other that show he appeared in the match). Jogurney (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Kosm1fent (talk · contribs), a Greek editor who does a lot of football edits, to see if he can find any sources. Giant Snowman 15:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have much to add. I can verify that he still plays for Aiolikos, as he was voted for captain on 24 September 2011, and that I've also found lots of Aiolikos match reports. (cannot be used for sources, as they are considered routine coverage – and there were no reports from 1995 to 1998, where did Jogurney find them?). However, I have found a reliable source citing Theagenis' appearances with Aiolikos up to 31 December 2008 (when he moved to Kalloni): [18] – "[...] he made 129 appearances in the Gamma Ethniki (7 with Acharnaikos and the rest with Aiolikos)", so there is no doubt he passes WP:NFOOTY, but there is no source citing his appearances from 2009 to now. Furthermore, Patraikos as his former club is supported only by this highly questionable source, I suggest we remove it. – Kosm1 fent 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kosm1fent. Based on your findings, I've attempted to incorporate the sentragoal and onsports references and cleaned up the article (removing the unsourced Egaleo and Patraikos mentions) and I am satisfied that the article could pass the GNG. I would like to withdraw the deletion nomination, but I don't know how. Jogurney (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just by stating that "I would like to withdraw the deletion nomination" - which you have done. Giant Snowman 17:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I'm not sure he passes GNG (I don't think the media coverage of him can be considered significant), but he certainly passes NFOOTY. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comment of mine above. – Kosm1 fent 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Credit to Kosm1fent and Jogurney for establishing notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical centre of the world

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

prod was declined: despite that, does not seem to me to be a significant or notable concept, merely an artefact of the coordinate system. One ref mentions it only in passing, the other not at all. Much of the article consists of essay-like commentary of the state of nearby countries. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be articles about the geographical centres of certain countries. Even if it's just an artifact of the coordinate system, people live within a 1000-mile radius of the "artifact" and it seems to be the site of a new African oil boom right now. If this article works out, we could someday be writing about the "geographical centre of the universe." GVnayR (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be kept - geographers who read Wikipedia may find it informative and interesting. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Neither of the sources listed actually use this term. It's merely an article about the geographical coordinates 0° latitude, 0° longitude. The concept of a "geographical centre" to the world was contrived by the original author. Technically, it would have made more sense to call it the "Origin of the geographic coordinate system", although that would be confusing because of the ambiguity. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is purely a result of where we decided to put longitudinal meridians; it has no significance in real life. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pure, unsourced opinion and original research (if research is the word for a nonsensical thesis). We could have an article for 0 lat/0 long, with any interesting comments made about the random (in one dimension) spot, but this is not that article, and the title is nonsensical. there cannot be a geographical center of a planets surface (or a finite but unbounded universe).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to mention in my previous statement — Center of the World is actually located at 41°13′42″N 80°54′36″W / 41.22833°N 80.91000°W / 41.22833; -80.91000. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by User:Fastily (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truck loader

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

The article reads like an advert, contains what appears to be biased original research, and contains only the external link to the game itself. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No evidence of notability; article is almost entirely promotional. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm thinking this should either redirect to loader (equipment) or disambiguate between that and forklift truck. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Festus Kator Inyon

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

article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG, WP:V & WP:RS - the article with the 2 links to facebook & google+ has a very strong promotional tone. Amsaim (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content of this article is unverifiable by reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social media downfalls

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

Content fork of Social media which reads like an essay and appears to contain mainly original research. Contested PROD. Part of the information could perhaps be merged into Social media#Criticisms, but both the title and the content of the article are fundamentally POV and seem unsalvageable to me. bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -Cntras (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely an essay, definitely POV. Luna ibis 11:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOV Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Remember, people: making a Facebook account is the Fatal Glass of Beer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced POV essay. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Written in an essay format from the author's point of view, like an opinion piece. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the article does have three references, but the current state of the article appears to be too biased to be salvageable. Is it possible that it could be speedily deleted per criterion G11 because it heavily promotes the idea that social media is a negative thing? Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sextant Properties

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

Nothing notable about this firm. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in google news and no reliable sources on google. Comte0 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as nominator withdrew nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Hormazábal

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

~~I can find no wins on the Challenger level or above and I see no entries in the main draw of an ATP event. That would mean non-notability in Tennis.~~ I withdraw this nomination per comments below on Davis Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my sources (oncourt software) he played in Davis Cup against Croatia in August 2009 in a match against Roko Karanusic. That would satisfy NTENNIS. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...there it is. I actually found he played in 2 Davis Cup matches. Darn it, I missed that, but your eagle eye spotted it quickly. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I missed that he played Davis cup (twice) as mentioned above. I withdraw my nomination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jetsons: Father & Son Day

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

Unsourced articles about a Jetsons short. I'd previously removed a source that did not reference the Jetsons cartoons at all. A search did not bring up any reliable sources for these shorts.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also unsourced and I was unable to find any reliable sources to show that they passed notability guidelines:

Delete Both per nom. Both articles are unreferenced, with no apparent reliable sources suitable for inclusion. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: I found nothing to show notability. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Two more non-notable and non-canon Cartoon Network time-filler shorts. Nate • (chatter) 05:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No coverage found in reliable sources found to establish notability. Gongshow ^Talk 03:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer

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

Unclear why he is supposed to be notable, fails WP:BIO. He had some tobacco stores, but the company itself isn't notable[19][20], and there is no other reason of notability. Ond of his sons has an article, but I'll nominate that one for deletion as well as a WP:BIO1E. Searching for his short name Oscar Lindauer or his long name (article title) doesn't give any Google Books or News Archive results, and none of the regular Google results indicate any notability either. The New York Herald article of 1866 is not a real obituary, but a funeral notice only. Fram (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator has it right. I looked and could find no trace of notability. WP is not meant for personal genealogical entries. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sign that he was notable at the time either. A useful cross-check is to ask whether he would be likely to be notable today; the answer has to be no because businesspeople rarely make it unless they rise to be CEO of a large corporation, or make a particular mark as innovators or entrepreneurs, and often not even then. It is not enough to be a worthy citizen or even ancestor. --AJHingston (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Podhammer

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria at WP:GNG, WP:WEB or WP:ORG Dubbin^u | t 19:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be candidate for WP:PROD but was nominated in July 2010. I can't see that it meets notability criteria now. Dubbin^u | t 19:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Quasi human | Talk 14:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and at this point I'd treat this as an uncontested proposed deletion. Article is about an Australian-based Podcast that discusses Games Workshop's miniature wargame Warhammer Fantasy Battles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree as the proposer. It was only the previous WP:PROD, rescinded without explanation, that held me back from going down that route. I think the tumbleweed blowing round here is testament to the subject's lack of notability. Dubbin^u | t 02:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Daniel Ponce de León

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

This boxing match fails the WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria with no "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect" demonstrated. The coverage that exists is purely of the routine nature any sports match gets. Mt king ^(edits) 03:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major title was at stake here, and I can see no other reason to consider this fight notable. The nominator's guesswork concerning boxing matches came up with the correct conclusion this time. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria states "[e]vents are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." By performing simple internet searches, a vast number of articles are found. The coverage seems to be widespread and covered in diverse boxing and sports sources. Therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The critical word in that quote is "impact", what impact did this have ? answer "None". Mt king ^(edits) 19:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, what makes 'impact' the critical word? How are you able to decide what word is critical? Second, it did have impact. It had two top-5 featherweight fighters fighting each other on premium cable where both fighters are formal title holders (see http://ringtv.craveonline.com/ratings/featherweight). This is no different than a random UFC event having a page (UFC Ultimate Fight Night 2)or a minor college bowl game having a page (2001 Seattle Bowl). All those have widespread impact in their sport as does this event. RonSigPi (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2012 (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) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason for this article to exist. Both boxers rightly have their own articles which cover this non-title fight. And if anyone wants to nominate minor MMA events or College Football games we'll consider them on their merits. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley Rollergirls

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

Non-notable amateur sports league, no more notable than a Little League or American Legion league. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems like the only source covering them is their local newspaper, The Morning Call. Doesn't pass GNG. GrainyMagazine (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain why The Morning Call is not a reliable source. See WP:IRS--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG (the applicable guideline here): "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Fram (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on your talk page back in October, "Searching through the history and talk page archives [of WP:ORG] clarifies its intended meaning: coverage by "tiny newspapers" with circulations of one or two thousand is unlikely to demonstrate notability; regional newspapers such as the Morning Call with circulations around 100,000 were never intended to be covered by this." Warofdreams talk 00:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that this is a notable team. Even if we consider the Morning Call to be more than a local source (it is local, but with a large circulation), it is not really sufficient, multiple such sources would be needed. Fram (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please consider listing this deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now listed it there. Anyone can inform relevant projects of AfDs, provided that they follow the advice in WP:CANVASS (word things neutrally, don't spam, etc). Warofdreams talk 11:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, member of the Women's Flat Track Derby Association, which is the highest level of competition in the sport, so has a claim to notability. Coverage in the Morning Call is a good start, a newspaper with a significant circulation and a large number of articles focusing on the league. There's also coverage in this rather more obscure newspaper, and a clear indication that there was significant coverage in The Express-Times (actual article sadly not on line). While this isn't a huge range of sources, it meets the primary notability criterion: "A [team]... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Warofdreams talk 00:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a member of the WFTDA is not really indicative of notability, although for a US team not being a member would be more indicative of not being notable. A flat organisation with 130 members is not the "highest" level in the normal sense, it is basically the only level. It is not like in soccer or other organised team sports, where you have a top league of 10 or 20 teams (which is then the highest level of competition in that country), and lots of lower levels. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to claim too much for WFTDA membership (clearly, a substantial number of leagues hold full membership), but most - perhaps all - of the full members do have multiple, independent, reliable sources covering them. Membership of the highest level of competition - however broad that is - is a claim to notability (not necessarily one which will always convince, but a claim nonetheless). The members are clearly more likely to attract notice than a Little League team (and attendances for bouts of members, where given, vary from a few hundred to a few thousand, which I suspect is more than for a Little League team). The WFTDA has an Apprentice Program, which is essentially a lower level of membership, and I agree that US leagues with Apprentice membership, or which are not WFTDA members, are much less likely to meet notability standards. Warofdreams talk 16:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to DThomsen8: I think Fram said it for me, but I never said that The Morning Call was not notable; I was only implying that it alone is not enough to establish notability. GrainyMagazine (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep: Member of the WFTDA. Other newspaper sources include "WFTDA Welcomes nine new rookie teams, Atlanta Examiner (GA) - November 1, 2010, Length: 336 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)" and "Last chance to see DC Rollergirls at home this season, Washington Examiner (DC) - May 6, 2010, Length: 438 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)". I'm in Australia so have limited access to better USA sources. Suspect they exist. --LauraHale (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Young Quartet

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

This quartet appears to be NN -- zero refs, only 1 hit on gnews, zero RS hits on gbooks. Tagged for notability and lack of sources for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is possible to create a well referenced article about this quartet, see for example this link. I've added some citations (The Age, Melbourne International Jazz Festival). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I wonder if it might be better to move it to (for example) Lisa Young (singer). (Presumably the vocalist's career does not/will not consist solely of leading one quartet.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presuming the Billy Pinell review is verifiable. All coverage to date is under this name so there's really no issue there. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article appears to satisfy a number of WP:Music criteria, Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Question -- can we rely on RSs that are reflected in a non-RS primary source? If the answer is yes, then even though I can't otherwise see RS material, I'm happy to withdraw. I'm just not clear on the answer. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I added are not reprinted non-RSs, check the article. Lisa Young is probably not as famous as Ella Fitzgerald, however, she's an awarded artist in her country. The information is verifiable and contributes to our coverage of Australian jazz personalities. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your link in your first post, up above. If those are sufficient even though reflected in a non-RS primary source, that would suffice. I'm just not clear. As to the refs in the article, if the award is enough (not sure off-hand), that would be enough to make her notable (though not her band, which is the subject of this article), and I notice that the first and third of the three refs focus on her, and not on the band.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the The Age articles are verifiable [21][22]—so it only needs for the Pinell review listed to exist and multiple sources is met. The first and third refs have focus on an album (Grace) that was released by The Lisa Young Quartet so i don't see an issue on that point. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tx, Mr. Music IP. The first and third refs are not substantially about the quartet, but I guess this is not a terribly important issue as a practical matter -- whether titled as an article on the quartet or an article on her (as Gyrofrog suggests we consider) -- both can be discussed, and the other title re-directed. It would only perhaps become an issue if we were to seek to have 2 articles, one on her and one on the quartet. As to your above comment on the Pinell review, you suggest that "it only needs for the Pinell review listed to exist". Are we comfortable that we have proper support for that? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it shouldn't be used until verified, but it seems an unlikely invention and therefore goes towards notability, in my view. I also hold the postion that the award suffices as another source in any case. [23] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The award is certainly sufficient if the article is re-named to be about her -- from your diff, it appears that she is credited with the award personally (as can be seen from the awards below hers, when a band is the awardee, that is made clear).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Grace is an album by The Lisa Young Quartet. http://www.mazar.com.au/images/album/1292-1267.jpg If Lisa Young won an award for an album by The Lisa Young Quartet, it's rather silly to suggest the subject of our article title doesn't gain notability for it. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Lisa Young (singer) (or similar) per Gyrofrog. She has won or been nominated for national awards as a member of her quartet and of her a cappella group. Both ensembles have released 3 or more albums. Both have performed national and international tours. Such an article would satisfy Wikipedia:MUSICBIO#Criteria for musicians and ensembles at a number of points – only one point is needed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine w/withdrawing in favor of such a move to Lisa Young (singer), as you suggest and as Gyro suggested we consider. On the basis of the fact that -- for whatever reason -- per the above ref supplied by 86, the award in question was tendered to her, and not to her quartet. I can't explain why that is the case, as similar awards were tendered to bands and groups, as can be seen by the diff ... but I'm hesitant to presume that they really meant to give the award to the quartet and not to her personally, when the RS suggests the opposite. At the same time, I'm happy with a redirect of the trio. And -- should, as 86 says -- we see RS support for the verification of the Pinell article (or a similar article), that would be sufficient IMHO for an article on her as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnell [sic] is quoted here and here (only a sentence or so) but this confirms the review's existence independently of Young's site. Sound Vault cites reviews of Grace and have linked it to both Lisa Young and Lisa Young Quartet {see here). There's a gig review here. The quartet and Lisa Young Trio have been played on ABC Radio National's Daily Planet, here.
As for the Bell Award to Young only, as its for a Vocal Album and she's the leader and only(?) vocalist (see here) then its possible that it was awarded to her rather than the quartet?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the info available Lisa Young and Coco's Lunch probably both warrant there own separate articles. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. All of the awards are either awards of Lisa Young or of Coco's. I'm not even sure what the para about Coco's is doing in an article on the quartet, though I could see it in an article on her.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene

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

We do not need an article on each clinical trial ever conducted. This trial has made a limited impact on the prevention of breast cancer, and the results should be discussed in the context of other modalities, not in a separate article. Delete. JFW | T@lk 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with JFW. Pubmed lists many millions. An article on each is not needed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that Wikipedia should not have an article on every trial. I have searched for references and added a few. I believe that at least one of them (Wickerham, abc News) could be regarded as a third-party reliable source that establishes notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "STAR" study got massive coverage in national reliable sources [24] - New York Times, USA Today, etc. I added several of these references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of improvements since the Afd was opened, appears to be a very notable study. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sourcing added to the article, topic passes WP:GNG. See references section in the article; the ABC News, USA Today and Business Week articles cover this topic directly. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do need an article on any study that get's this level of reliable source coverage that makes it independently notable of any other modality or article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article says "One of the largest breast cancer prevention studies ever,[2] it included 22,000 women in 400 medical centers in the United States and Canada.[3][4][5]" That sounds pretty notable to me. Dream Focus 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-vanguard Pictures

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

This movie company lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for lack of refs since 2006 (pretty amazing ... ). Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Very low ghits, all of which are business directories and not even a baseline mention in IMDb so looking for their only mentioned film would have been pointless. Survived only by virtue of obscurity, too bad there's no speedy criteria which fits for it. tutterMouse (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switching my !vote to Speedy delete, the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet so missed that it's a good A7 candidate and tagged as so. tutterMouse (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I denied the A7 speedy per '"criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines", as the article makes an assertion of notability through its "recent release". The issues of notability and sourcing will be discussed here at AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete While the company exists,[25] lack of coverage fails WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP. Note: The documentary film Hearts of Gold does exist[26] and actually was screened some 12 years ago,[27] and apparently did win an award,[28] but that's the film... and not reflective on its distributor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage exists about their works [29], but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources about the company itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tokyogirl79, if you wish to keep working on this I'll be glad to move it to your userspace. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Demcak

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

Was brought to my attention on WP:COIN, because the user most likely is the subject. Considering the references and the last AfD, and the fact that this looks more like a vio of WP:NOTRESUME, I just don't see how this can stand. Phearson (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to try to clean up the article. I've started by removing the reviews and such that are obviously from blogs as well as the references that just went to purchase pages for the books and the references that just went to Wikipedia entries for the colleges Demcak has gone to. Maybe the article will be better once all of the cruft is removed from it? Doubtful, but I'm going to at least try.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even allowing for the fact that it's difficult for modern poets to reach the kind of coverage which notable authors of novels achieve, I can't find any evidence that this poet comes close to reaching the notability guidelines for creatives. No reliable sources found in GNews or GBooks. No major awards. It seems to me that nothing has changed to reverse the decision made at the previous AfD.--CharlieDelta (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. I'm having a really hard time finding sources. The only thing that I can find review-wise is the sole Verse Daily review, which has three separate people commenting in it. Two of them do seem to be notable per reliable source standards, but it's all on one source. I'm kind of leaning towards delete, but I'm going to work a little more on this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment. I'm not familiar with how publishing works for poetry and the importance of the other references. I will seek input at WP:POETRY. a13ean (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that his participation in a single, minor event is insufficient to create encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Scott Atwater

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

My major concern here, as expressed on the article's talk page, is WP:BLP1E—that is, the fact that the subject is notable for only one event. Given that this one event he's notable for is an accused crime, and a fairly serious one at that, I'm personally inclined in favor of deletion. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone thinks that an article about the event surpasses WP:NOTNEWS, they can write that article. But what this person did does not meet the exceptions for WP:BLP1E, and at this point the person hasn't even been convicted of a crime. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll repeat here almost exactly what I had already said on the article talk page: As its stands, this article is not strictly a biography. It is more about two closely related events concerning a member of the US armed forces carrying explosives on civil aircraft. The article possibly passes WP:GNG - but does its human subject? No. Is there a case for deleting per WP:BLP1E, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS and/or WP:RECENT? Yes. Is there a case for an article about military people carrying explosives in civil aircraft? Possibly, but but as Qwyrx says, someone should write it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP/NOTNEWS argument. Oh, and Shoos, it's also a declined PROD...you didn't mention that... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice it, and in any case, it's not really relevant to the deletion discussion here. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be noted that Purplebackpack89's vote should be disregarded as per consensus at ANI for his near constant hounding of all my edits. He has agreed to the MelanieN proposal that limited his edits to topics with which I was not directly involved in.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the venue for you two to continue slinging mud at each other. Take it to AN/I if you feel you have to. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOTNEWS is obvious here. Note the amount of unencyclopedic detail, some of which was reinstated here (and subsequently reported). This is written like a news story, with a plethora of redundant detail stuck in there to suggest there is an encyclopedic subject here, and the edit summary, "the dealings of the case are of note and have been widely reported," also indicates that we're dealing with a rehashing of the news. To cite but one example: "His lawyer, Jason Leach, also stated that Atwater was willing to comply with the terms of his release." Of course his lawyer said that. Has there ever been a lawyer who would have said the opposite? This has all the hallmarks of a NOTNEWS/1E topic and should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject clearly meets the GNG and notability is not temporary. In the worst case scenario BLP1E suggests that if the content is of note a move to something like 2011 C4 incident covering the event is in order. Also there are non PERP issues as the subject of the charges does not deny having committed the act, simply that he did so by accident. This is a rather unique event as well. I don't think this has ever happened before whereas peolple attempt to board with knives and guns quotidianly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG clearly. Unique event.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then each individual case of a weapon found at an airport is notable. That's an average of four per day, as long as, I suppose, they are charged with something--which would include the Georgia man with the loaded 22, at the bottom of that USA Today article I linked. I don't see what's unique or meaningful here. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a case about a weapon, it's a case about explosives and no its not every day a green beret tries to board with a bomb. This article needs to be viewed on its own merits not on speculative opinions of other unrelated dissimilar events worthiness.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has no merits. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merits is a rather opinion based argument falling under IDONTLIKEIT.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's just your opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems that WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS applies here. There may be significant credible coverage but and that makes the event notable not the person. WP:RECENT probably precludes an article about the event at this point, but as this unfolds it may be worth writing. EricSerge (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then doesn't that show a case for a simple move to an event based article?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill person in the news for only one thing is what WP:BLP1E is designed to prevent. Nothing particularly notable about the incident itself either. Women walk into shopping mall fountains, flight attendants get drunk and swear and quite their job, a judge gets recorded beating his daughter (I could link to all those AfDs that resulted in a delete), but I do not have the time/inclination) ... All are interesting news blips that the drive-by media screams about for a few days while waiting for another white woman to be kidnapped. We're not a newspaper. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that judge was deleted? Good. And the Heineken-drinking flight attendant too? Good. Tarc, what is your twitterfeed? I need to stay more aware of the news. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to incident - the incident might be notable; the person is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a textbook case of WP:BLP1E to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook violation of WP:BLP1E. I see no reason why the incident should be presumed to have any lasting notability, so it also doesn't meet WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear example of WP:BLP1E event itself doesn't warrant an article either per WP:NOTNEWS RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of people are citing not news as well, so it should be noted that it does not conflict with moving to an article based on the event. This should be okay then since this is not breaking news it's simply a recent development and if we make it about the event then it does have enduring notability and avoids BLP issues.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS has absolutely nothing to do with whether its a breaking or historical event. The question is whether the event in question is anything other than mere routine news coverage. I won't speak for others, but I think that this clearly falls into that category: one guy is alleged to have committed one crime. Not a particularly big crime, either, nor one that, even if convicted, will carry a large sentence. No one died, no one was hurt, no one lost any money...this "event" simply does not have the notability required to have its own article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it does, when you read it it states "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." So any opposition to move it to an article about the incidents?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really hasn't unfolded to be a bigger story that could be viewed as historically significant. The attempted carrying of unauthorized objects on to aircraft is pretty run of the mill. Search the web and there are a lot of reliable sources about those kind of stories. However, this story has not developed beyond that, and is likely not encyclopedic. WP:Notability (events) seems like a good place to look for guidance. This event will likely not have a lasting effect. It lacks depth of coverage , five of the cited sources are repeats of the same info from the AP or Reuters (look at the authors of the articles). It lacks duration of coverage (at this point) with most sources coming from the first week of January. Sorry mate the event does not seem to have notability at this point. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP1E Mt king ^(edits) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The person is notable only for one event. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Rather than a "rescue" tag, this article needs a "NOTNEWS violation" tag as we read "This brought him international press coverage" (and a Wikipedia article!). He played football, he joined the army, he was admonished, he was arrested—delete and recreate after something encyclopedic becomes available. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The essay WP:109PAPERS is relevant here as well; not everything which is widely covered is appropriate material for an encyclopedia. Horologium (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) under CSD G12. →Σ τ c. 06:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cruz Fernandez

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

Copy vio from http://bharathar.blogspot.com/2008/07/rao-bahadur-cruz-fernandez.html GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CSD G12 →Σ τ c. 06:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to East Carolina University. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hail to Thy Name So Fair

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

No indication of notability, as mandated by WP:GNG. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. GrapedApe (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WTH, is this gang up on me week? If a college song/alma mater isn't notable, then I suggest the offended party go to Category:American college songs as well. PG Pirate 05:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here, sorry. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, I'll be checking that category for other NN songs.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge into East Carolina University. On a search for this song specifically I failed to find anything outside of ECU websites (unless you count mp3bear.com). Fails WP:MUSIC, but I still think it might be worth preserving in the main article. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Hi Jrcla2. Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that we merge content that is not RS-supported? I mention this because this article lacks any refs at all, let alone RS refs. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epee. The basis for my own merge !vote was that I did see the alma mater on an official East Carolina University website, which is in fact a reliable source, but that was the extent of the coverage. Since it's minimally verifiable, I don't want to take an axe to it. I think there might be merits in its inclusion on the main article for the school but not on its own. I hope that answers your question. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. So you are not suggesting that any we merge any text per se that is the article (and unreferenced); but rather that we redirect the name and reflect the alma mater, with what you found serving as a ref? (That would affect whether we have to keep the old history, among other things). Thanks for the clarification. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So really what I'm suggesting is to redirect this article in question to a specific sub-section of East Carolina University for the alma mater, which would need to be made. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an unlikely link or search item. I don't really see anything in Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects that would apply to Hail to Thy Name So Fair .--GrapedApe (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to delete this article, I will 100% back that, for the record. I just didn't want to be unnecessarily quick on !voting delete when there may be worthwhile reasons to keep it, except as a proper redirect. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in that redirect.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally we find that major college/university songs are notable at least as a stub. While I admit there are very few available sources online, I'm reasonably confident that offline independent reliable sources can be found. The information is verifiable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit that I'm dumbfounded. I've never, ever, heard that we find college songs per se notable. Please, add these offline independent sources. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who ever heard of the Rutgers fight song either? Where do you draw the line? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure the people at Rutgers have, for starters, but we're not discussing the merits of that article at this AFD. However, WP:IDONTKNOWIT covers your argument:"arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable."--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the people at ECU have heard of their own fight song too. What does that have to do with anything? You can't single out one school's non-notable song and claim that another non-notable song somehow gets spared the axe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Red herring. We need sources, per WP:GNG, to prove notability. There's no credible claim of notability in the article or by Paul McDonald.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - On the contrary, you've proven the point. The Bells Must Ring has no claim of notability whatsoever. Notable for nothing. Unless you're claiming it's notable just because it's Rutgers? Big freakin' hypocritical deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I don't think anyone has proven any point here, except I think we've successfully covered that it is pointless to argue about the notability of a song primarily about Rutgers at discussion about a song from East Carolina. You are correct that bringing up the Rutgers fight song is a "red herring" as it has seriously taken this discussion off the track of the original intent. I'm not sure why it was brought in to begin with, but I wish we'd keep the focus on the issue at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would be interested in the basis for the statement: "Normally we find that major college/university songs are notable at least as a stub." And Paul -- since you used that as your rationale, I'm confused as to why you are bringing to task others for what we do with other fight songs. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        See Fight song, and all its sub-categories. I don't understand why you're coming after me for bringing up Rutgers--I didn't bring up Rutgers.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I checked what you referred me to. They indicate instances of some articles re some college fight songs. But they do not state, as you did, that keeping them is "normal". And the instances indicated seem far fewer than the number of schools that I expect have fight songs. How do those instances lead to your statement that it is normal to keep such articles? And I never said you brought up Rutgers. I said -- quoted, actually -- you bringing up the notion that we should look to what we do with other major college/university songs. And then brought to task another editor for doing precisely what you had done -- by focusing on another major college/university song.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The other editor did not do what I suggested. I looked at a large group, of which some have been through AFD and remarked that normally these AFDs result in keeping the article. The other user picked one specific article that is presently poorly sourced and poorly written and attempted to use that one example to represent the larger group. Hence, "red herring" -- it doesn't apply. Here's a cheesy example of the fallacy: 1) I don't know if this cheeseburger will taste good. 2) Generally cheeseburgers taste good. 3) Here's a different cheeseburger that tastes terrible. 4) Okay, this cheeseburger must be terrible too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you only look at those that survived Afd? Or also look at those that failed AfD?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't recall any that were deleted in AFD. There probably are some.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I wonder whether ... had you looked only at those AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, you might not have reached precisely the opposite conclusion. Obviously, you can't look only at articles that survived AfD, and conclude from that that all articles in that subject area survive AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge There is really no justification for a separate article here; the song is not that well known except to the alumni of that particular college, which is the standard I'd use for articles like this, and there's nothing much we can say, except link to an anthology and a web site. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If sources can't be found, Merge to East Carolina University. Patken4 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to East Carolina Pirates. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E.C. Victory

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

No indication of notability, as mandated by WP:GNG. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. GrapedApe (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WTH, is this gang up on me week? If a college fight song isn't notable, then I suggest the offended party go to Category:College fight songs in the United States as well. PG Pirate 05:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here, sorry. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, I'll be checking that category for other NN songs.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing GNG and MUSIC. The only sites that come up are either ECU or mirrors of this article's Wikipedia entry. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for those reasons. There is no verified content worth merging anyway. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The school and its sports teams are certainly notable, and their fight song at least deserves a mention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Softie! Drmies (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What has ice cream got to do with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail to Thy Name So Fair. As I posted there, we normally find major university fight songs to be notable, if only as a stub. While the internet doesn't show a lot of fruit for reliable sources here, there should be plenty of offline independent reliable sources available where the information can be verified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit that I'm dumbfounded. I've never, ever, heard that we find college songs per se notable. Please, add these offline independent sources. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where do you draw the line? One of the delete nominations was for the fight song of Rutgers or one of them. Who knows that one, outside of Rutgers students? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IDONTKNOWIT covers this nicely, stating "arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable."--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Red herring. We need sources, per WP:GNG. There's no credible claim of notability in the article or by Paul McDonald.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's my point. It was a red herring to bring up Rutgers in the first place. It was an obvious attempt to thwart the discussion from the actual issue by bringing up something else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If sources can't be found, Merge to East Carolina Pirates. Patken4 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect per Patken4, unless sources can be found to flesh this out to something better than a stub. Fight songs were often more popularly recognizable both historically (e.g. in the era of big bands) and in their local region, but this article has essentially existed as is since 2006 with little expansion. Not even local Greenville or ECU university sources are used to flesh out the origins of the song. Merge and let the subject grow to the point where it can breakout into its own article naturally, if it comes to that. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) as a hoax. →Σ τ c. 05:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo! The Dread of Chicago

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

This is a bit of an emergency. After I prodded the article, the creator told me, basically, to stuff it because it's a proposal he's trying to make. Furthermore, he's asking that the article not be deleted until it gets blogged, so basically we should rush to delete it before it gets blogged. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 04:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax, since the article makes it clear this does not exist. If its is felt this does not fall within CSD:G3, then this is a classic case of IAR where speedy deletion is justified to prevent the use of Wikipedia for purposes of perpetrating a falsehood. Sparthorse (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. It also doesn't help that the creator is violating WP:OWN, as well as making a slew of personal attacks in the edit summaries: [30] [31]. (AIV, here I come.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above →Σ τ c. 05:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as film described as a "possible" film, per WP:NFF. Until it becomes an actual film by starting principal photography (or the equivalent for animation), it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. No sources have been provided to suggest that a redirect would be worthwhile. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaanuru Heggadathi

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

Article on film seems non-notable and has no media references, fails WP:GNG User:A412 (Talk * C) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep This article is sourcable and improvable under the correct searchable title of Kanooru Heggadithi.[32][33] Through analysis and commentary in books, this one apears to have made it into the enduring record. I can understand the difficulty the nominator may have had in his own WP:BEFORE due to the strange mis-spelling used in titling of current article... making the AFD's original Find sources template ineffectual. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks salvageable to me, I can't see the whole page but this looks like a promising source. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KanyeToThe

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)

Wikipedia:Notability Dfnj123 (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete. This article has no notability at all. The only references that actually talk about the site are ones from the site itself. The page has also become the subject of intense vandalism. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep. They worked for their page, let them have it. Extra note: Fashion Expert wasn't me, you just canceled a persons vote for no reason. Rocabear (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Rocabear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Not noteworthy. In response to the above vote, you can work hard at anything, but if you don't do it right, you may not get it. Calabe 1992 03:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"" Please Keep." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.231.20 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Kanye West and add a sentence there iff it's a reasonably official fansite). The independent (WP:RS requires third-party reporting) refs given with the strong claims of notability do not support the notability of the site itself. Some do not even mention it at all. The overall pattern I see is "A happened because B happened on C; A is cited and sounds important therefore C is notable", but notability is not inherited. Notability is the threshold, not effort or passion. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::* Please Keep. No reason for the article to be removed. Admirers of the site decided to create a page in its honor. FashionExpert (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.202.251 (talk) [reply]

Delete. Effort involved in creating a page does not exempt it from deletion. See WP:EFFORT. Additionally there is a reason in this case-it fails the general notability guideline. Also, are FashionExpert and Rocabear sockpuppets? They both used the same !vote, similar reasons, and made the same signature mistake (I have fixed the link mistake). User:A412 (Talk * C) 03:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're both Rocabear (as is "Wikipedia Owner" below); check the history. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: Please Keep. They earned it to be honest.. Wikipedia Owner (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocabear (talk • contribs)~~ *Note: Struck out additional !votes from User:Rocabear (pretending to be different users). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You don't have to strike them; SineBot is an expert at catching impersonators. :P →Σ τ c. 06:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any RS. →Σ τ c. 06:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Σ. Phearson (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not getting anything notable, lots and lots of self-promotion though but nothing reliable. tutterMouse (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.80.57 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a majority vote, and the fate of the article will depend on the merit of the arguments presented in this discussion. Simple claims that the article should be kept or deleted without a sufficient explanation (often referred to as !votes) hold very little weight in these discussions. Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anything in reliable sources which would indicate this subject meets WP:WEB. Gongshow ^Talk 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listing all three on WP:DRV for the purposes of common treatment. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

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

Delete. The 2010s list was previously nominated for discussion in November 2011 and was kept. List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was created afterwards and nominated for AfD and was deleted in December 2011. This nomination is to hopefully get a clear consensus on having both individual year articles and by decade articles that basically provide the same information from the same sources, except over one page vs. 10 pages. The individual lists are consise and provide nice introductions and summaries for each year. The decade lists also provides some statistics which could mean more by being merged into List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, if appropriate and space allows. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I still feel this is all repeated information and unnecessary. - eo (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets most of the qualifications for WP:LIST. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my !vote in the last AfD, the list seems appropriate I still no reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's no redundant information, it's clearer information. I see no reasons why should be deleted. --HC 5555 (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if consensus here is to keep then I propose that the already-deleted 2000s list be recreated. It makes no sense to have a gap in what is obviously a series of articles. Either keep all or delete all. - eo (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no reason to repeat the information in multiple ways. wikipedia is not a list of statistics, and is certainly not multiple lists of statistics of the same information. The music project should set up a standard, which should be followed

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion below established that there are enough external sources to establish notability for the subject, and link rot was the main cause of the apparent lack of notability. Der yck C. 22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orr's (department store)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Currently cites only to a blog. A news search reveals a list of hits by one local rag, and, as far as I can tell (they require payment to see the full article), are mainly passing references. Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the nominator. When I click Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, it says "About 3,120 results (0.28 seconds)". Make certain when you search you click the "archive" option on Google to get results. Dream Focus 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such a major business should be notable. There should be plenty of material on it in local sources, even if not online. Borock (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Very Weak Keep~~ Strong Keep - Many sources are paywalled. Despite this, it is apparent the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly when an article's title directly states the topic's name— along with many of the article summaries repeatedly referring to the topic, clearly denotes significant coverage. WP:GNG doesn't disqualify local news coverage, and the coverage is not necessarily routine in each and every instance. Added to the article:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've moved these paywalled sources to the talk page for the article, after the provision of the full articles by User:Goodvac (see below), who has had access to them. Most aren't significant coverage that establish topic notability. Some of these may be usable to verify information in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Changed my !vote above to "Strong Keep," per coverage posted by User:Goodvac below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes it's unwise to assume significant coverage when you cannot view the entire article. Here are the full texts of the articles listed above: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. And none are significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~Changed !vote to very weak keep~~, per this source, which addresses some aspects of the Orr's store, including remnants that remained after the store's closing ORR'S STORE CLEANED IN PREPARATION FOR NEW BUSINESSES. Perhaps other tertiary book sources can be found. Rather than unwise, it can also be considered prudent to preserve content on Wikipedia that is historical in nature. Thanks for providing full articles for the sources I pointed out above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome. I agree that it's wise to preserve historical content, so long as sufficient sources exist. It is, however, unwise to assume from Google snippets that articles are significant coverage.
  That article is hardly significant coverage. It provides little information about the store itself.
  - Orr's was a "once thriving business that was a cornerstone in Easton's downtown commercial district".
  - An array of items were left in the store.

That amounts to scanty coverage.
However, since this store was founded in 1950s, there may be offline coverage. I'll perform some more searches in subscription databases. Goodvac (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reaction to that article ("scanty coverage") as you did. I was going to post a comment but decided not to in favor of others evaluating the material for themselves, but I gotta say you are doing one helluva job illuminating whether the store is sufficiently notable - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but as I said above, I'm doing some searches in subscription databases, and I think there may be enough for WP:GNG. I will post my findings shortly. Goodvac (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wed to any particular outcome, so it doesn't matter to me if the article is kept. I just prefer that the result be well-supported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote has been changed to "Strong Keep", struck out info above about previous !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in The Morning Call: "Orr's Struggle Worsens with Lost Credit", "Orr's Presence Goes Back To Irish Brothers", "'It Won't Be Downtown' When Orr's Closes Tomorrow", and "A Grand Emporium Owen Rice Opened Mercantile In 1821" (not fully about Orr's). I'm concerned that these are all from one newspaper, The Morning Call, but the depth of coverage and that Orr's dates back to 1868 (offline sources may be more plentiful) prompt me to say keep. Goodvac (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Do the WebCite sources you provided above stay active forever, or do they expire? It would be nice to use these in the article, but if they expire, their addition wouldn't be functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WebCite links will exist forever, so long as WebCite itself doesn't go offline as it has several times in the past. However, the articles I linked to, as well as those you referred to in your initial comment, are available for free online at The Morning Call's site. This is one example. I just used NewsBank because I favored its cleaner format. Goodvac (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a chain and so we could expand the coverage to other cities besides Easton. Warden (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage has been found establishing notability. Dream Focus 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. The "keep" !voters have failed to address the concerns that this sporting event has had only WP:ROUTINE coverage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye 2001

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

no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTSEVENT. routine fighting event. having notable participants does not mean it's automatically notable. also nominating:

Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye 2002 LibStar (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Events were supercards, as reflected by the notability of the participants, which were nationally-televised annual shows. In other words, absolutely not routine events. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how are they super cards? What titles are being won? LibStar (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, a supercard features "multiple high-level matches and/or special attractions". These shows featured fights between notable competitors with the addition of special attractions such as matches featuring politician and legendary pro-wrestler Antonio Inoki and a legit fight between Yuji Nagata and Mirko Cro Cop Filipovic (the two top stars of puroresu and MMA at that time). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to non-routine nature of event. --WR Reader (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many things aren't routine. Where is the notability and significant independent coverage? Papaursa (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, presumably. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't presume, please show me the coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Media outlets are referenced on the Japanese Wikipedia version. Enjoy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell, most of these articles are about contract disagreements and who will be fighting who. One article is about a fight at the event, but among the spectators not in the ring. I didn't see anything to show this event was notable. The fact that there were some notable fighters does not make the event notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Otherwise every football game could be considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot logically compare a football match to a professional fighting show. Footballers play weekly, fighters don't. Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye is an annual event not a weekly television show. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both The only source for either article is a list of the results. The articles lack significant coverage and fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both by default, i.e. no real reason or need exists for deletion. Sources exist discussing this event in which champion caliber fighters participated, i.e. it is notable and verifiable by any reasonable standard. Deleting these articles, which are a record of sports history that provides valuable encyclopedic information for readers, while instead having a discussion about deleting the articles that really provides no useful record of anything, just does not make sense. By the way, any predictions for tonight's PPV? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. WP is not a repository of sporting results. The reason for deletion is failure of WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both articles fail WP:ROUTINE. Internet searches provide only the usual fight cards and results. There is very little coverage of either event therefore they both fail WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete both Articles fail WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. There's no indication of notability, only routine sports coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Articles clearly pass WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT due to non-routine and exceptional nature of these events (annual events are not routine like weekly seasonal events), which are not really comparable to any random baseball game, for example. The participation of mainstream fighters and the fact that they are covered in association with these event in not just English, but also foreign language sources further demonstrates that these article meet WP:GNG. Finally, "it's useful" is actually a very good reason for keeping these or any articles, as after all, one of the main points for an encyclopedia to exist in the first place is because it is a useful reference tool. Objectively speaking, there is no reason to delete these articles. Just not liking something that is relevant to other readers is not a reason to delete anything. There is no benefit to anyone by getting rid of these, whereas by keeping them, at least those interested in the subject can have a handy reference to this aspect of mixed-martial arts history. Even in a worst case scenario, these would be redirected, but there is no one we need to protect from this information that would justify deleting it altogether. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 2001, 2002, & 2003 articles into a single Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye article. The series of events is notable in the early history of mixed martial arts contests. If these events were held today, they probably wouldn't be notable because of the relative popularity of the sport. But, at a time when there weren't nearly as many opportunities for these athletes to compete, these events were notable (and notability isn't temporary). The series of events would seem to be more notable than any one individual event, therefore, a merge seems appropriate. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and improve. The later comments have demonstrated enough notability and verifiability. Der yck C. 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (song)

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

Fails to meet WP: NSONGS. Song was a failed single, and the article has no claim to notability or references. Prodded it but the prod was contested; no rationale was provided for the contesting. I know the standard for non-notable songs is to redirect them to the album, but such a redirect seems redundant in this case, since the album is also called The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Narrowing searches to look for material about the song, rather than the massive amounts about the album, is naturally difficult. But I did find an entire book about the album [42] published by the academic publisher Ashgate Publishing, which contains significant material about the song (for example. pp. 63-65). Given the extensive writing that exists about Genesis, I suspect there is more out there, if one can take the time to look. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway per WP:NSONGS until such information can be verified to add to and expand the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Arxiloxos - I have no doubt that there is more out there on the song, but is there any point in having a whole separate article for it, rather than incorporating it into The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, where far more readers will see it and far more editors will be around to refine it?--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might make a case for a merge, but not for deleting the existing article (which contains a number of useful, non-contentious facts) and its edit history. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of references. Granted, most of the coverage out there is within the context of album reviews and other pieces addressing the album as a whole, but there is tons of it. Probably the most popular track on the album, this single Youtube video has over 200,000 plays and Last.fm shows a quarter million listens. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A redirect the article on the album will just create confusion amongst less experienced users, even if it is deleted, someone will most probably try to create another article. In order to be useful, the whole article needs a complete rewrite which I can assist with. A quick search on google presents plenty of material relating to the actual song - surely this could be modified for inclusion in the album. JTG.Turbo (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rod Gaspar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cade Gaspar

AfDs for this article:

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

Former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N Adam Penale (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 10. Snotbot t • c » 00:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ as recreation of a page that was deleted in a prior deletion discussion. Spanneraol (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Switch to regular delete per below. Spanneraol (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it was deleted in 2007. Surely things could have changed. Unless this is the text from the deleted page wasn't changed, that is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, was it deleted? From the article history, it looks like the AfD was closed as delete, but then the page wasn't deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then if the closing admin forgot to delete the page after closing the afd it should definitely be speedied... does not look like the article has changed in any significant manner since that point. Spanneraol (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was overturned in DRV because of sockpuppetry being involved in the original AFD. Secret ^account 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh. That sounds like an accused suspect being let off because he wasn't read his Miranda rights. I wonder why the talk page and first AfD make no mention of the DRV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Fails WP:BASE/N, though there do appear to be some sources about him out there. If there is enough in those sources to make a meaningful article, without relying on routine coverage, I could change my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Rod Gaspar, the article on his (notable) father, which could use the content. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything to merge/redirect there. Rod's article shouldn't include discussion of his son's career. It seems to have as much detail about the son as is required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu (talk • contribs)
  - I think it's relevant that the son achieved a certain measure of notability in the same field as the father (particularly given baseball scouts' focus on bloodlines when assessing players). Making a conference All-Star team and becoming a first-round pick isn't enough to make the son independently notable, but it's not nothing, either. All Rod Gaspar's article currently says about his son is that he played pro ball. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my original vote in the AFD and the DRV. Fails WP:BASE/N, only routine coverage that's typical of first round MLB picks. Secret ^account 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge or redirect per Hit bull, win steak. Any merge should be limited basically to what HBWS suggests, which can be about 2 sentences - that Cade was a college conference All-Star, Detroit Tigers 1994 1st round pick, played A-class ball in the minor leagues from 94 to 96. Rlendog (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Texas Rangers minor league players. v/r - T P 22:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew West (baseball)

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

Minor League Baseball player. Hasn't gotten past Single A. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Adam Penale (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Texas Rangers minor league players. Currently on the Rangers 40 man roster. Spanneraol (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Weak Delete. He's had some press for failing a drug test and sucker punching a couple of guys, but I don't think it's enough yet for Baseball notability. On another point, the article manages to be wildly POV despite only being three sentences long. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and seriously improve per the others. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TINI (integrated solutions)

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Article is sourced to manufacturer's website, a press release, and an article written by manufacturer's CEO which only mentions TINI in one paragraph. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article is about highly integrated analog and mixed-signal solutions for the consumer electronics market. Please start over from the beginning. What is this, again? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of the article and I work for Maxim -- just making sure everyone knows that. I posted the article because TINI is an important term. We can delete it and post it after some time but thought it would be useful to be there early. CNN Money and the industry trade journal Electronic Products posted their articles because of the importance of the idea, which allows much smaller handheld devices because very different functions occupy a single component, something that is very hard to achieve and crucial for these applications. The postings by CNN Money and EP were not paid placements. EP wanted for a longer article on the concept and used a brief done by our CEO.

I will clarify highly integrated analog and mixed-signal solutions for the consumer electronics market. It's not nonsense but I can make it clearer.

- Moe Rubenzahl —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

First off, Moe, thank you for revealing your conflict of interest; it makes dealing with the situation easier. Having said that, I'm sorry, but at least part of what you're saying is bull. The CNN Money "article" is indeed a paid placement - Maxim may not have paid CNN, but they did pay GlobeNewswire. CNN did not put it on their website because of the "importance of the idea", but because they appear to automatically post every single Globenewswire press release that includes investor information (such as a stock ticker code). If you check the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines, press releases are not considered "significant coverage" and do not lend to establishing notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nat, I should have pointed out my affiliation earlier, thought it was known. I'll update my profile. I wasn't meaning to hide that.

I note your point about a PR as not constituting evidence of notability.

I clarified the phrase that Smerdis of Tlön found to be nonsense.

Other than that, nothing to add and I'll let the consensus process take its course. It's not a big deal to Maxim to have this article; was just trying to explain the term. - Moe Rubenzahl —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Brand name for a concept that is not unique to this company. Google Books doesn't give relevant hits to this product adn the initialism has been used for many other integrated circuit-related concepts. Maxim can afford to buy all the publicity they need, they don't have to advertise here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Kerry Senior Hurling Championship

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

This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. purely a list of winners. and it's very incomplete. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SR-72(plane)

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

Pure speculation. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per number 5 at WP:CRYSTAL, which says "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate". CityO fSilver 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally added the 'notability' tag. The article is about a possible name for a possible plane that may not be technically or financially possible. And may or may not be developed in secret. Very vague! Sionk (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet notabily criteria (no broad coverage - a search finds mostly old rumors) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Objections above that this is a Crystal ball exercise in "product announcement information" is off base — this is a very real classified government weapons project, as attested by the footnote showing in the piece, which is a Gannett Co. news story. The fact that it is in the development stage rather than to the point of actual production and use is neither here nor there so long as there is extant published coverage of the program. That's one piece of published, independent, reliable, substantial sourcing showing as a footnote in the piece. The problem lies in finding anything more than that. I gave it a little spin yesterday and wasn't able to find anything that passed muster. However, I think other reliable stories are fairly likely to exist, given the substantial number of blog stories that I saw. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One article in June 2007 and some subsequent blog chatter does not really meet our WP:GNG, does it? EricSerge (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unverified secret project - fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Peacock (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any individual aircraft type is notable. However, given that this is simply a contract award with the rest being speculation, this is something that should likely be deleted without prejustice to later recreation if and when more information becomes available. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far too speculative for an article. All aircraft types are notable, but this is barely a rumour of the possibility of a type. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually nominated it a second time as somebody had tagged it as closed - outcome Keep, so ythe second nomination can be ignored.Petebutt (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nobody had tagged it - that's just part of the template code for cut-and-pasting onto the talk page if it's kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that now, thanksPetebutt (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For starters, lets look at where the title came from, which is that one web site said that some people are calling the possible future plane plane a SR-72. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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