Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 January	13 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 redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006). (non-admin closure) Sprinting faster (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Nasrallah

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Claim to notability appears to be placing 6th on a version of Pop Idol, which as I understand it does not by itself confer notability on a singer. Zero refs. Zero RS gbooks hits. Limited gnews hits appear to either be passing mentions and/or relate to her 6th place finish. Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006). I can find no coverage to establish notability aside from being a contestant. -- Whpq (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect likewise on all counts. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 06:57, 19 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The result was Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oceans of Kansas (book)

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

I found no significant coverage. The article is only two sentences with no claim to notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oh my god does the "Find sources" template need a JSTOR parameter. Got four reviews in top-quality sources right here. It's also frequently (I think?) cited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never use the find sources link and I've never heard of JSTOR. I see that it is notable and I better withdraw before some weirdo says that it's common sense to know about that search engine. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 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 speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#A7 Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrce High

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

Non-notable computer game. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unreferenced, non-notable web content. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non notable freeware game. I have tagged for A7. Safiel (talk) 03:14, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break technologies

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

WP:NEOLOGISM, posted by an editor using what appears to be his own blog entry as sole reference. Ghits for '"break technologie" Wessel' (last name of originator of term) look to be all syndication or linking to same article, or utterly unrelated to this usage. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, appears to be WP:PROMO. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and redirect to sledgehammer, which has always done the job for me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. If it becomes widely used, someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:19, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yama Umi Do

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

Article about a supposed martial art. However, the two references are the same and point to a website that does not mention Yama Umi Do. Possibly a hoax, definitely lacking any reliable sources. Clearly both promotional and not neutrally worded. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems pretty straightforward. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this is a hoax: Googling (sensei "mark wagner" martial) brings up several websites that mention this, often with the variant spelling "Yami Umi Do", which is mentioned in the article. However, it seems to fall well short of WP:GNG: the sources that I've found are mostly subpages of the Golden Dragon Dojo website, e.g. "Tsunami Truth", or subpages of ICMAUA, e.g. this one (do a string search for "wagner" to find references). Neither of these qualifies as a reliable independent source; note that the main ICMAUA page states that members of the organizations can "publish your MA [martial arts?] bio in 'Who is Who'...", with no suggestion of peer review. A Google search for ("imperial karate handbook" wagner) turns up exactly one hit: this WP article. There's a fairly clear notability failure here. Ammodramus (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. 'Mark Wagner passed away in 2001. The author his trying to honor the style of Karate he created by describing and quoting from Sensei Wagner Directly. Perhaps Wikepedia is not the right ___location for this purpose? I no longer have a copy of his handbook but I am confident that students of his do. I do have photographs from both Dojo's which prove he had the studios however I realize that is not sufficient to support the Style of Karate I am addressing here. I would appreciate having enough time to adds some more research as all of this happened, including his death, before the internet or Google were as popular and useful as it is today. Mark Wagner was a student of Dr. Sachio Ashida (at Brockport, N.Y.), an Olympic Coach at the 1976 Games in Montreal, whom I have met in person. Here is a link to an article about him http://judo.teamusa.org/news/article/13725 and to State University of New york At Brockport. I am hoping to contact his daughter, who is a martial artist, to get more information on Yama Umi Do style. It is possible that in the smaller martial arts arenas this is the only place that this is an important style. HOWEVER, just because a style is developed and used in a small local and not on a World level, this does not make it any less valuable or unique.

I would be happy to change the word to a more neutral angle suggesting the style or similar. CourageandFaith (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)— CourageandFaith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm afraid that you're right: Wikipedia is not the right ___location for this purpose. A specific Wikipedia policy, to be found at WP:MEMORIAL, says that this is not a place to create memorials for deceased friends, acquaintances, etc. Nor is the importance of the subject a criterion for including or excluding it from Wikipedia: obviously, importance is subjective. The criterion in question is notability, which you'll find discussed at WP:GNG. To satisfy it, you'd need to find significant in-depth coverage of the subject by independent sources. A personal communication from a daughter, a book self-published by Wagner, the ICMAUA website (which apparently allows members to publish their biographies without any sort of fact-checking or review), and the Golden Dragon Dojo website wouldn't satisfy this criterion. To satisfy it, you'd need to find something like extensive coverage in a widely-circulated martial-arts magazine: and that's extensive coverage, not a brief paragraph or inclusion in a list. If you can't establish notability in that sense, then with no reflection on the importance or unimportance of the subject, it can't be included in Wikipedia. Ammodramus (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a WP:HOAX but Article clearly lacks both independent sources and fails WP:NOTE. FWIW the correct Japanese pronunciation for the name of this style should be Sankaido and not "Yama Umi Do" - not that it matters here. Editing language for WP:NPOV will not correct the lack of notability. Jun Kayama 20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are not valid, not a notable subject.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reponse to Ammodramus: I was reffering to the daughter of Dr. Ashida who us world renowned and was Sensei Wagners First teacher and mentor for many years. Also I was not trying to memorialize Sensei Wagner I was trying to preserve the martial arts style, if it is rightfully its own style. I understand that the article should be deleted on this basis and will continue my research for support of that.

Thank you for your time and this experience. Interesting to note the referance to Sankaido. I will have to look into that. Who deleted the entry? CourageandFaith (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has not been deleted as of this Comment. Many martial arts styles founded by non-Japanese attempt to generate Japanese names or titles which do not conform to the rules of the language; "Yama Umi Do" is gibberish in Japanese. FWIW, in Japanese the title of Sensei comes after the name and not before if it is to conform to Japanese grammar. Also a number of historically significant styles (i.e. Meiji Restoration era) and teachers in Japan proper do not meet the WP:NOTE criterion for inclusion even in JP Wikipedia due simply to a lack of sufficient source material in print or online. Wikipedia should not be used to "preserve" the memory of a martial arts style. Any such attempt belongs in a well-respected trade publication. Jun Kayama 22:29, 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 keep. Listed at AfD for 11 days without any really good reasons to delete. Spam can be removed through normal editing. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hemorrhoidolysis

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

Looks like spam with no reliable sources (no papers on pubmed, no reviews on google school) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real medical procedure. But it needs in-line cittions. Maxdlink (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hemorrhoidolysis exists, but this page is spam for a particular device. Nothing here worth saving. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many references to medical procedure in Google Scholar, as shown by MelanieN. The solution is to operate on this article, surgically removing the spam and advertising, and replacing it with healthy, organically grown information. The Steve 08:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is better known as the Keesey technique, and a search on Wilbur E Keesey might shed some light. The Steve 12:01, 7 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 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as noted above, this is a medical procedure. But delete the spam and commercially-oriented material. Drjem3 (talk) 22:19, 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. Sources appear to be insufficient for notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People's Liberation Front (group)

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

Seems to be a non-notable online protest group the only references that are not to the groups facebook page or website make no mention of the group. I already speedy deleted it once and retagged it upon its recreation only for the tag to be replaced with an underconstruction tag based on this [1] promise of further refs, however I find it unlikely that any will be forthcoming, and still believe that this group meets csd:a7 Jac16888 ^Talk 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the de-speedier, I nevertheless agree, based on my own Google searches, that this group does not meant our notability requirements. The period of this AfD should give ample time for the article's defenders to find and add RS. And if they do, I'd reconsider. But I made a good faith effort to find them, and could not. ~~I also wonder if there isn't a lot of wishful thinking and invention here, and have tagged it as a possible hoax, too.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also removed {{underconstruction}} as it has been made redundant by this nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination affects the future of the article? No. The closer of the nomination determines that. Anarchangel (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood me: I just meant that I'd placed an underconstruction tag to give the editor more time to add refs, but when the article was nominated for discussion, such a tag was unneeded, as the article cannot be speedied or PRODed during the AfD process, giving the editor sufficient time to try and improve article.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, an RS from Cnet has been found and added, with a prominent mention of the group. I'm sorry I missed that and am more convinced that I did the right thing by de-speedying. I've removed the hoax tag and have struck through my delete !vote. Let's see how this develops.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is now up to par, please remove the Afd tag. Also, here is another RS i will add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Dirty Watermelon (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm sorry, prominent? The article is about a homeless bloke supposedly called "Commander X", the only mention of this group is in passing, "...was part of an online protest organized by the People's Liberation Front--also allegedly associated with Anonymous". That hardly makes them noteworthy. If anything these "reliable sources" are at best a suggestion that perhaps the "commander" could warrant an article, not the group--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that access to a cube is a prerequisite for notability is noted. Does having more houses make one more notable, though, and are we to require verification that Wikipedia subjects have houses? Anarchangel (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you about Chris Doyon: I've added a news ref from the Orlando Sentinel about a series of attacks in Florida. I think some form of article should be remain, but perhaps as a bio article for Doyon rather than this alleged "group." The extend of the attacks would indicate that Doyon has earned a place in Category:People associated with computer security (which includes hackers). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the Orlando incident has already been documented at Food_Not_Bombs#2011_Florida_feeding_bans, with a mention to Doyon there, too. This "homeless hacktivist" is notable, I'm convinced. But the group, no... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I argue that the group is notable for OpCIA, OpSyria, and their involvement with Anonymous. The article on Doyon would also go quite unexplained without an article about his group.A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is it certain that Doyon is not the sole member of the People's Liberation Front? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - quite certain, I joined their irc (irc.iranserv.com/#plf) <= use a client) to make sure. While not large, they are notable. A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Instead of IRC, you can check this. While many aren't active any more after the arrest of 'Commander X' the group DID have many members, and is worth keeping the article. A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess that's my point: despite all the chat forum wannabees, moral supporters and what have you, was Commander X/Christopher Doyon/Homeless Hactivist the only who actually did anything? If so, then the article should be about him, imo, with this article repurposed as a WP:Redirect to his bio article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. When X was arrested, the group went into hiding until new leaders were found. And They have been. What else is a hacking group but a few big players and some skids? Also, many people DID participat in their blackfax/ddos ops.A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since a key point seems to be whether the organization is notable independent of Doyon, also tagging for:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, given the criminal nature of activities:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what we have here is an article about an internet group. The only references of any use are passing mentions in a couple of news articles about the groups alleged leader, "Commander X". These news article suggest that there is a slight chance Commander X is notable, however they focus on the single crime he apparently committed suggesting that he is a WP:BLP1E person and not really worthy of an article--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:04, 11 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 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept. I don't see how it helps distinguish this People's Liberation Front from any other People's Liberation Front to use the qualifier "(group}". All of them are groups. No opinion as to the keep/delete issue yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept. Excellent point by Metro90. I don't have any opinion on whether this particular organization passes GNG, but I do strongly believe this is an improper name that needs to be changed to something indicative of WHICH People's Liberation Front "group" this is, if kept. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and storm: You have got to be kidding me. Some Hacker Guy claims to run a "liberation group," and based almost entirely on self-referential bits off of his own website, that's supposed to sustain an article? This AfD has been up for two weeks now, and not only is that more than enough time to uncover multiple, reliable, independent sources discussing the subject in "significant detail", as the GNG enjoins us to do, an article cannot be sustained without them. Not only are we not required to keep an article indefinitely just because of the fuzzy premise that such sources must be out there, somewhere, anywhere, we're required to delete an article which lacks them, and I'm unimpressed by the creator's assertions, backed by nary a shred of genuine proof. It is not enough that the subject be mentioned in passing, as it is in the CNET article proffered as evidence of notability. The subject must be discussed in "significant detail," and it is not, there or in any other reliable source.
It's defensible that an article might be sustained for this Chris Doyon, though he comes off more as a pathetic self-promoter than anything else, but that's another debate, and isn't pertinent here. This fails WP:GNG and likely WP:BULLSHIT as well. Ravenswing 09:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Heavily reliant on primary sources and the other sources are not sufficiently mainstream to accurately establish notability. Pol430 talk to me 14:54, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bronson

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

An actor and and mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter. IMDb has him appearing in two shorts and a TV episode. Fails WP:NACTOR. Has only been in one MMA bout. It was a preliminary card bout and a California Amateur Mixed Martial Arts Organization (CAMO) amateur fight. Fails WP:MMANOT. Only source that mentions him is http://www.charlesbronson.com/bio.html, but it appears to be a fan type page and thus unreliable. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence he meets the notability criteria for either acting or MMA. The fact that he's Charles Bronson's great nephew is irrelevant (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP He is an actor and a fighter. Maybe not that big of a deal, but he is noteable for being the nephew of charles bronson, and for being included in the death wish remake. if the guy were a plumber, it would be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.223.130 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, Charles Bronson probably had other relatives as well.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability criteria as either an actor or fighter. Article also lacks reliable sources and clearly has problems with WP:NOTINHERITED. Mdtemp (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once lost an undercard match at some MMA fight. "Was hired to appear in a remake of Death Wish. After many months of scheduling conflict, the project was scrapped." "A few notable appearances as an extra on Law and Order." This brief article is practically an AfD nomination for itself. Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:ATHLETE, fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:08, 19 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Mellow

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

Non-notable drag artist. Of the three references, #1 is a generic site with a reference to Marsha Mellow in a footnote, #2 is a Facebook page and #3 cannot be read here in the UK. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is asserted (barely) so I felt compelled to decline the request for CSD, but nothing in the article suggests the subject meets WP:N, and GNews searches don't help either. Best hits seem to be for a Samoyed apparently similarly named. Frank | talk 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Just because a drag performer is not known in the UK doesn't mean she is not known here in the U.S. She has been on national television a few times and performed across the country. I think you are being bias. 98.198.63.94 (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The reason the ABC (American Broadcasting Co.) does not work in the UK is due to copyright issues, ABC programs are syndicated to the UK and you must go through your local content provider to watch these shows. 98.198.63.94 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Marsha is to go the following drag queens have little or no references as well and should be offered up for deletion as well: Logan Carter, Dreuxilla Divine, Vicci Laine, Antonio Pantojas, Sherry Vine, B. Morris Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.63.94 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other poorly referenced articles is not relevant to this discussion. At present, there is nothing in the article to indicate that the subject passes the tests at WP:N. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please add it to the article. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Meeting the anon IP's objection, I quite agree: just because a performer is not known in the UK doesn't mean he's unknown in the US. A complete lack of Google News hits [2], however, does. Ravenswing 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Ravenswing Pol430 talk to me 14:58, 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 Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Physistical

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

This appears to be a term made up during a boring Physics class. As the article says "there is a lack of media and cultural references to it". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable, no sources, and Wikipedia isn't for dictionary entries anyway. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

A boring physics class? Funny, almost abusive. Regardless, I fail to understand the idea to remove this page? I have received and email and letter from the "Oxford University Press" "Oxford Dictionaries" and "Scottish Qualifications Authority" today regarding its authenticity and creation, 12th January 2012, no wonder there is no use of it. If "In Popular Culture" section is unacceptable it can be removed. This article must continue. I would have to verify it with the senders, but could post a PDF of a letter, email and future article from the Oxford Dicionaries and University Press regarding its introduction to society and the language? PhysicsDude21 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I deleted Wiktionary:physistical as when I tried to find evidence of use, there was none. And of course if it existed it would be correct for Wiktionary, in any event, even if it were correct it should be deleted here as off-topic, but in fact it's off-topic and made-up. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to save a comment as the article was deleted - I don't believe this is necessarily a hoax, but a new user who likely doesn't understand sourcing and notability requirements. Support deletion. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:04, 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) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Farziat

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footbeller who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Mr. Farziat had played in the Azadegan League. However, as this league is not fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:42, 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 keep. Per 86.44.47.170's findings, the topic of this article passes WP:BAND and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Game (band)

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

Not an notable band, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See below. ~~Could not find any Reliable Sources for this article.~~ Phearson (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 06:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Changing to keep per sources identified below. Kudos 86.44.47.170. Gongshow ^Talk 19:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, per wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Mr. IP's good finds.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creative Loafing,[3][4] "The best math-rock albums of the ’00s" by Daniel Mee of the Houston Press,[5] "10 Records for the Thinking Hardcore Fan", Mee in the Press,[6] Space City Rock,[7] Dusted Magazine.[8] I'd also be happy using the longrunning Collective Zine, who have reviewed all their releases.[9] 86.44.47.170 (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND criterion #1, coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified by 86.44.47.170. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 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 speedy delete. The page was deleted by Fastily on 20:29, January 12, 2012, per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

NetDirector

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

The article is written like an advertisement, poorly sourced, and all sources I could find were primary. Inter change able|talk to me 19:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G11 Criteria for ambiguous advertising. Phearson (talk) 20:27, 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) 00:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Awards

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

Highly unnotable. Not one reliable source can be found to verify this article. None of the given sources support the claims. Johannes003 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional or fanfare. A commercial award (that is given away for the promotion of the sponsor). Started only one month back. Not notable. Austria156 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recently instituted award ceremony and unnotable. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:04, 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) 00:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Span

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

Contested PROD, football player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Tooga - BØRK! 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Tooga - BØRK! 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never played Djurgårdens IF, he fails WP:NSPORT and there is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article per WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:41, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Graham Greene (Volume 2)

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

This does not seem to be a notable volume of a notable biography. First of all, it is completely unreferenced. Second, it is nothing but a table of contents. Third, it is one volume of a three-volume publication, and those are not individually notable unless they're part of the Waverley Novels. Now, it is entirely possible that The Life of Graham Greene is notable (see claim on Norman Sherry but that article does not exist, so it is not verifiably notable yet and we have nothing to merge this to. The same goes for Life of Graham Greene (Volume 3), which I will tag for AfD as well. Note re: possible merge: I don't see the point of that, given that these have no verified encyclopedic content, and as search terms they are useless, so no need for a redirect either. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but without prejudice to creation of a better article about the entire three-volume publication. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks more like a table of contents than an encyclopedia article. If there is an article on the biography, it should be a single piece combining the three volumes — assuming sourcing can be mustered to defend that. As for this specific case, pretty clearly something that needs to go away. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 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. The sources have now been listed at Talk:Normandy landings. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Success of D-Day

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

POV fork of Normandy Landings and Normandy Invasion. Poorly written, no text worth saving. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was added in good faith by a new editor, but I agree that it's not necessary. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Normandy Landings per WP:FORK and WP:SYNTH, but not delete, in order to save the additional references. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sprinting faster (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted by History

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

Fails WP:NBOOK absent significant coverage in reliable sources - all sources are fringe, such as AIM, Canada Free Press, Renew America, letters to the editor, etc. or alternately coincidentally contain the phrase in a piece published before the book existed. DePRODed by creator who said he would work on it, but without any reliable sources, it isn't going anywhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a very important book supplying needed balance to a one-sided view of Joseph McCarthy. The book was reviewed in many publications, and was praised in a speech to the National Press Club (USA) last year. Also, lack of sources in the initial stub is not a reason to delete an article. At worst, the closing admin might require me to userfy it till it's more fleshed out. But the significance of topic itself should be the question, not how comprehensive my initial version was. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should start with user page versions until you have enough sources to make viable articles instead of creating unsourced stubs. You wouldn't have 3 or 4 of your newly created stub articles at AFD right now if you did. He iro 20:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from article creator to closing admin: I have no objection to having the page moved to my user space, if efforts to bring it up to minimum standards are taking too long. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage of this controversial book in reliable sources, and the article now includes some of these sources. Article still needs work but there's no reason to delete it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but have an editor with WP:COMPETENCE rewrite from scratch. The current detritus badly obfuscates the notability to the topic -- particularly citing the lead sentence solely to the book itself and its publisher, and relying on WP:FRINGE sources when a lengthy NYT review is available and badly underutilised. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Have since rewritten it myself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public School and College (Pakistan)

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

Fails WP:GNG Only passing mentions in newspapers[10] Only one mention on Gbooks[11] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Notability is established even by the sources listed in the link from Darkness Shines. Here's a specific mention in a reliable paper [12].. actually this search finds many RS for the institution [13]. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:53, January 13, 2012‎ (UTC)

Your first source says no more than the name. Your second search fares no better. WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material Were is the Significant coverage? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another 4200 results [14]. I don't think so. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, just 16 Learn how to do a search please. And again passing mentions only. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on the content instead of teaching me to search. Your search is incorrect missing out many sources. We'll have other editors to review anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, secondary schools that can be verified to exist are inherently notable per WP:NHS. I don't agree with it, but it's community consensus and it's not going to change through individual AfDs (that happen to be about less-covered regions, see WP:BIAS). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you just put burden of evidence on nominator. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. It verifiably exists; it might not have a body of coverage supporting general notability but it passes a specific notability guideline. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant As with other types of articles, we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist. per WP:NHS you linked. I think there's a general notability here as well given the no of citations that mount up to 4200 results. Not to mention we've not yet looked into offline media. This is a speedy keep per that. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keepI can't believe that this article has even been nominated for deletion. Did the nominator not read the article or look at at the external links that were provided? It is not just a single school but a whole school system "of 117 schools with a student population of over 1,26,665 and a teacher strength of over 7,130". See: http://www.apsacssectt.edu.pk/visitors_locations.html. The article should probably be renamed as Army Public Schools and Colleges System Secretariat. Dahliarose (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A previous CSD tag by the same user at Muhammad Iqbal got that article deleted which now turns out to be not under the speedy deletion criteria. I have serious doubts about this nomination. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber-stamp keep Not only is the school notable, as pointed out by several other users above, but the user also needs to learn a lot more about deletion criteria (this comes from a look at the mess that's been created at the Muhammad Iqbal article recently; a 9 year old article that was incorrectly tagged under WP:CSD#G12 and ridiculously speedy deleted). Mar4d (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As stated in the article, the organisation provides a significant contribution to the country's education. The fact that it is currently weak on references is not alone a criteria for deletion - many sources for subjects in developing countries are not available online. Also, this school system will almost certainly have produced some highly notable alumni. The page will be prioritised by the school and Pakistan projects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move. This school system meets our notability requirements. But there is a mis-match between the title and the name used in the first line, the infobox, and the EL. This should be moved to "Army Public Schools and Colleges System".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on keep votes. Roscelese says keep due to WP:NHS, this is an essay. However this essay in a nutshell says, High schools/secondary schools are generally considered to be notable, but they must be able to meet the relevant guidelines for notability This school does not. Kudpung says keep as produced some highly notable alumni Notability is not inherited. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are some statements made by individual !voters here that not all !voters agree with. I would focus on the fact that the article was misleadingly titled -- which I expect naturally misled you. Despite its title, the content of the article appears to be about the system, rather than about the lone school indicated. If you look at it from that perspective, perhaps you would find some merit to my above keep !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name you mention above "Army Public Schools and Colleges System" gets 0 hits on Gbooks and only four on Gnews. Is there another name it is known by? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might try 2 searches: in one, delete "System", and in the second, search the acronym. I added the first search, below.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Large, clearly notable school system. Obviously one that print sources could be found on in Pakistan itself if anyone looked. Articles should only be deleted if sources can't be found, not if they haven't yet been found. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my understanding, actually. Are you suggesting that our policy is to retain articles where no sources have been found, on the basis that editors simply imagine that it is possible that they could be found? I think, actually, that our notability guidelines call for demonstration of the existence of such sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, I think our guidelines call for common sense, something that seems to be sadly lacking amongst many of the newer, endlessly-guideline-quoting editors of Wikipedia. I cannot conceive of a situation where sources could not be found for a system of 117 schools! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, !voted move -- so we are not disputing the continued existence of a stand-alone article; rather, we are in agreement on that (though for different reasons). At the same time, I think it a slippery slope that lacks consensus to suggest that we say an article meets our notability requirements because an editor cannot conceive that sources do not exist -- where the editor has not presented them.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, common sense! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We are (or should be) about building an encyclopaedia, not endlessly quoting sad little "rules" which aren't rules at each other. If editors concentrated on deleting the dross and left the reasonable subjects alone then Wikipedia would be a much better and less combative place. As it is, I am becoming convinced that many editors join Wikipedia purely to argue on AfDs and not to contribute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sad little rules are created by sad little editors, who seek to streamline the AfD process by reaching consensus on what is in fact dross -- and what is not. What is dross, and what is a reasonable subject, may not in the eyes of others be what it is in my eyes or your eyes. With all due respect, I think that that is the crux of the problem that you have identified.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it many times and I say it again here: notability is subjective, despite the efforts of some to claim it isn't, specific to each and every subject of each and every article, despite the efforts of some to claim that their favourite "rule" should be applied across the board, and decided by discussion, despite the efforts of some to claim that "rules" should be applied with no flexibility whatsoever (the fall-back of the "GNG is heaven-ordained and no exceptions can be made" brigade). Wikipedia has no rules; if we did then AfDs would be unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sprinting faster (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of music festivals in Italy

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

List contains an excessive amount of Red and external links which fails WP:NOT. A small handful of articles on notable festivals do exist, however it doesn't appear to be enough to support a stand alone list. Hu12 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly reasonable list and meritless deletion nom contrary to WP:ATD. An "excessive amount of red and external links" is a matter for cleanup, not wholesale deletion. There was once a time when red links were seen as a to-do list, identifying possible missing article topics, not as something to stamp out. Not a good shift in Wikipedia culture, nor is it a good practice to nominate something for AFD, primarily on cleanup grounds, when there has been no effort to clean up through editing nor even a single talk page comment about the list's issues. I also disagree with the characterization that only "a small handful of articles" exist, as Category:Music festivals in Italy and its subcategories shows that number to be over 40. Even if that number were not "enough to support a stand alone list," then this would still be merged and/or redirected to List of music festivals#Italy. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has problems / needs work, but looks like a good list topic to me. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list on a notable topic. Redlinks and linkspam should be addressed via editing, as AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough blue links that link to Wikipedia articles to justify the list. Anything that doesn't have its own article, or news coverage for it, you can discuss pruning on the talk page. Dream Focus 22:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of well konow music festival.User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone release dates

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

unnecessary list, incomplete Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 15:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not seem suitable for an encyclopedia. It's really a list of raw data. I'm sure it is worthwhile to a person interested in the history of mobile phones, but it belongs somewhere else than WP. (The nominator said it is incomplete, but even if it was complete it would still not belong here.) BigJim707 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no ring tone. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:SAL, this article could be justified. However there are no references to support the information. The main editor, Wikitürkçe was informed of this AfD on 12th January. However he is not engaging in any discussion. In the absence of references, it is preferable to delete this list. If suitable references are found, the list could be re-created in future. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:23, 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 keep. Merging may be further discussed on article talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attractive Nuisance

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

Tagged since may 2010, correction action has not been taken. Nobody Ent 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band The Loud Family seems kind of minor, so individual articles on each of their albums are probably not needed. In this case there is only one review, on a site that seems to review everything, so notability is not established. BigJim707 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. http://www.loudfamily.com/old/nuisrvu.html quotes 7 reviews from major newspapers in two countries. --GRuban (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per --GRuban. On the loudfamily website, the newspaper links to the official newspaper websites don't link up. This is 1 newspaper article's example which hasn't been linked but does exist http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-04-30/news/0004300101_1_loud-family-power-pop-band-members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerzzip (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Rogerzzip (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Loud Family. The band is notable, as shown by sources provided, but one article on it should be enough. Borock (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews quoted on the band's site seem to be discussing their whole body of work, not specifically this album (although it is mentioned by some). Borock (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Loud Family per Borock. Nobody Ent 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews are reviews of this album, or on the occasion of this album, principally treating of it above any other work.[15][16]Patrick Foster's Time Out review [17] [18] It meets any definition of notable. And no, Allmusic doesn't "review everything". 86.44.40.0 (talk) 15:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sprinting faster (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cole (politician)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN: he didn't ever get elected.

In addition, the subject of this article has requested deletion via OTRS (ticket # 2012010610001392). —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A single unsuccessful run for office might not confer notability; but Cole's made four (1996, 2002, 2004, 2008). He's received rather extensive coverage on North Carolina Libertarian websites (which probably wouldn't confer notability in and of itself, but which at least supports the presumption of notability) and on Libertarian-party websites elsewhere, which probably comes a little closer to independent coverage. He was profiled in a 2008 article in the Greensboro News-Record. A 2008 article in Politico spoke of him as a possible spoiler in a close Dole-Hagan Senate race. The combination of perennial candidacy, his apparent importance in the NC Libertarian Party, and his perceived effect on the Dole-Hagan contest, seem to create a reasonable presumption of notability. Ammodramus (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Ammodramus, he appears to be notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalCreator (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple candidacies, including state-wide races makes this a public figure. Sources showing. Nothing vaguely defamatory showing in the content, so the the subject's deletion request seems without merit. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although he is not a major political figure in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Although it doesn't make or break the notability requirements, 3% by a Libertarian candidate in a Senate election is actually quite good. Nice work by Ammodramus on improving the quality of the article. Location (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's a notable person, especially for his 2008 campaign that could have changed history. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 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 keep. Copyvio issues appear to have been addressed. No prejudice against opening another AfD on grounds of notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maloy Lozanes

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Malulay. Rationale as stated on the talk page follows. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original rationale from Talk:Maloy Lozanes (being this diff) reads thus: "Reason: copyright violations. Biography/Discography derived from maloy.biz. Year w/ Capt. Jack is incorrect. Couldn't change it (the reason why I had a debate with another User) because it's from a reliable source according to Wiki policies. But the official site is not reliable?Malulay (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

This "another User" gave source to the date of birth, because all the time you delete the date of birth. This source was placed only near the date of birth. This date of birth (1976) also confirmed by other sources, so the date is correct. "Year w/ Capt. Jack is incorrect"? If there is no objection from the other users, you can improve. However, dates of birth and it's sources do not delete. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rested the case about the year of birth since it's from a source that passed Wiki policies. I did keep changing the year with Captain Jack, too, according to a reliable, reference site. To 1999 instead of 1998 but User:Subtropical-man kept objecting & undoing what I edited. So, how can anybody "correct" that year if he keeps objecting to that, too? I originally created this page with all its contents, without much knowledge on how it's done here: signing posts, some policies & I didn't even know what a sock puppet is. But I already learned some of it in the meantime. But I was already reported for violations I'm not familiar with & User:Subtropical-man even "indirectly" called me stupid & accused me of hiding under IP addresses (Talk:Maloy_Lozanes). This debate was discussed/explained on this link, too, (User_talk:AdministratorMLML) & I have reported him in the meantime by e-mail for personal attacks & accusations. I requested for deletion since all the page's contents are from maloy.biz originally & because of another reliable site, the real year for Capt. Jack (which was on the official website of the artist) couldn't be edited. So, it's a copyright violation of the artist's website.Malulay (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a tic, let me make sure I'm reading this right. You're saying part of the article is copyrighted material from the artist's website? Can you remove that material from the article? Other editors seem to have added other material over the years, and the gaps could be expanded if the subject is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at http://maloy.biz but can not find anything that was copied from that site. Can you tell us what page it was copied from? GB fan 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all that was written there is derived from maloy.biz. It was only modified by other users over the years (improved layouts, corrected grammar, spelling, punctuations, etc.). Some were added by me without logging in. If I removed the copyrighted bio & discography, then the page would be blank & I'd be reported as vandalizing again. Only the foto was granted permission by the author to be used in public.Malulay (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under Profile - - Biography. And under Discography - - Discography & Releases.Malulay (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the almost word for word copy of the biography section of the article and have removed it. I don't think the discography section can be copyrighted because it is just the info that is publicly available (correct me if I am wrong}. GB fan 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid everything there is copyrighted.Malulay (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to GB fan's question on the copyright issue, it is an important question as it applies to all discog sections in band/musician articles. Here is my understanding. WP guidelines point, in part, to US law in the copyright area. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the issue of the application of copyright to fact in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991). In which it wrote (emphasis added): "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."[19] So — a screenshot of the list of the discogs would, for example, be covered by copyright. But the mere listing of the facts of the discog information is not covered by copyright. There is no copyvio under US law as long as we have: a) attribution , and b) the format of the list is not a mirror of the original format. Per Feist.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: May I ask what valid deletion grounds, suitable for discussion at AfD, have been proffered for this article? If there's a copyvio at work, it's a matter for WP:CSD, not for here. Failing a discussion on the notability merits of the subject, I'm going to have to advocate a Keep. Ravenswing 09:36, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikio

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

Reason Weburbia (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion procedure is very unclear since some of the instructions refer to links that dont exist, but in any case the Wikio web site is now just a commercial shopping site. It was previously a blog ranking site. It should be deleted because it is now a purely commercial promotion page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nomination. Article is an instructions page for a news aggregator site that has been blacklisted from reference in Wikimedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have reliable sources and is no longer notable, if indeed it ever was. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sprinting faster (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until Fear No Longer Defines Us

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

References in blogs and forums only (although the article creator didn't include any with the article). Didn't appear to chart, no claim of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable, it charted at No. 7 in Finland and has been reviewed by Allmusic and Savon Sanomat (Finnish newspaper). Mattg82 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mattg82; multiple reviews and appears to have charted. Gongshow ^Talk 19:51, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zanran

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

2nd AFD for this one. Was deleted last time. Search engine parked "on the cloud". Not notable, blogs for references. One patent from the UK, but that doesn't demonstrate or establish notability. The site might be interesting, but not interesting enough for reliable sources to cover it yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had previously requested CSD for recreation of content deleted via AFD (CSD:G4) but the admin reviewed and found the content was different enough to exclude it from qualifying. I don't think it qualifies otherwise under speedy delete, else I would have done that. Note that the article creator is an SPA with the same name as the search engine in both incarnations of this article. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [20][21]. Also, Search Engine Land, already in the article, was deemed a RS at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. The blogs aren't exactly doo-doo either. [22]. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Almost all editing by 86.44.31.213 consists of arguing passionately for "keep" in AfDs, including some where there is a clear and strong consensus to delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something i've never seen before. A factually dubious ad hominem in which "almost all" and "some" are doing a lot of work. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not accurate - Search Engine Land was mentioned ONE time in a comment by ONE user, and reliability of the source wasn't at stake, so your claim is misleading. It is not on any list as a reliable source here. It doesn't even pass the criteria or have its own page here on Wikipedia. As for blogs, well, they are blogs and few pass the sniff test for RS, even if they are notable by themselves. I will happily leave that to the closing admin to determine the reliability of those sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten editors scrutinized the sources. SandyGeorgia explicitly called for the sourcing to be examined, & comments were requested at the RS noticeboard and elsewhere. This is all at the link you were given. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Did you even read the page you linked? SandyGeorgia OPPOSED in the discussion, because of the "failure to use reliable sources. Webforums and blogs used as sources". Another quote "but you may need others to confirm that the sources reflect industry-wide consensus and knowledge, since blogs are not peer-reviewed.". Not that Sandy's opinion is the determiner here, but if you want to invite SandyGeorgia to participate in this discussion, I would feel safe with that. SandyGeorgia never mentions SearchEngineLand specifically (in spite of your claims) in ANY comment whatsoever. In the end, the article was promoted, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't based on the strength of the sources via "SearchEngineLand", but on the 56 other references that had already established "notability". Notability wasn't the concern in that discussion as in this one, it was being considered for Featured Article. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you don't seem to know what "SandyGeorgia explicitly called for the sourcing to be examined" means. If you like you can also see the abortive FAR. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Significant coverage in reliable sources confers with this topic passing WP:GNG:

(in French) Chartier, Mathieu (May 26, 2011). "Zanran, search engine data and statistics". Pcworld.fr. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
(in French) Bekkaoui, Selma (May 25, 2011). "Zanran, the new search engine data is available in beta!". Fr.techcrunch.com. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

There's also a Christian Science Monitor blog article, but the source of the blog is not under the editorial control of CS Monitor. I'll post it here to let other users comment about it's status:

Marron, Donald (May 16, 2011). "Will Zanran be the Google for data?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PCworld.fr article is rather short (3 paragraphs), but obviously they are a reliable source. The only one, which is odd since the engine doesn't support French.... The other is a blog, and the CSmonitor "article" is on their blog, with a guest blogger yet, would be ok as a passing reference but I think it is a bit weak to demonstrate notability. That is the problem, all but one ref is a blog, and the one is a bit weak on it's own. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:12, 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) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton First

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

This political party would appear to fail the general notability guideline. As 2007 establishment, it would be reasonable to expect an internet presence. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in online sources. I doubt there are offline sources that would pass the general notability guideline for the subject of this article. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject appears to fail general notability as well as WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Zangar (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Clearly NN, sicne it does not claim to have won an election even at a local level. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails GNG and WP:ORG. "young and good looking candidates keen to exploit their passion for local politics" do not a notable club make. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Brand

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

No evidence of notability, no sources added despite request in June 2008. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another business self-help book offering vague advice about making money. Add the name of the author to the Google News search, and you find nothing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 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 merge to Fashion in Film Festival. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion in Film

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

Notability concerns. There are sources in the article, but they provide little more than listings information; I have been unable to find the sort of in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. See also Fashion in Film Festival, which I have nominated for deletion via PROD. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have since removed the PROD tag at Fashion in Film Festival, having found this source which covers at least one iteration of the festival in depth. Would support redirect or possible merge of Fashion in Film to the Festival article if consensus goes that way. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Fashion in Film Festival. I'm in the process of adding and finding sources, but it seems that there's just enough here to show notability. I'll try to find more later.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Changing vote to redirecting and merge, didn't read fully so I didn't realize there were two articles. There's just enough here to create one great article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Merge and Redirect - there seem quite enough RS for Fashion in Film Festival but no reason for having two separate articles on the topic. By the way there should be some great images for this if these can go on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second editor (PeacockPeacock) is the same person as the first editor (she was recommended to change her name since it's the same as the article name) and she's associated with the festival in some context, so I'll have to drop her a note to ask her if she has any pictures she can upload. I agree- the pictures I've seen in the news articles are pretty awesome and would really look great on the article!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I've cleaned up Fashion in Film Festival and added 2 posters. There seem plenty of good sources there. If we are going to merge these, I guess it'd be a section on the FF, founding the FFF, and running other stuff (brief mention only). Keep up the good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahad Dar

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

Vanity piece, WP:TOOSOON, 23 year old with lots of claims but no reliable sources, only a handful of weak ones and a single IMDB entry for a short he was associated with. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does say on Junior Reid's wikipedia page that Mahad Dar is Junior Reid's manager. This seems significant to me; Junior Reid has a fairly substantial article, so Reid's manager should at least have a few lines, it seems to me. Not every 23 year old is the manager of a major talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.38.25 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is an unsourced claim, making it either false, or original research if a source can't be found. That "fact" was added by an IP, who only ever made one edit to Wikipedia as well, [23], making it a bit more questionable. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: A lot of hot air and self-promotion, accompanied by a complete lack of reliable, independent sources. That he has his own "webshow" just puts him up with millions of other wannabe "auteurs," that he's one of dozens in a single indie documentary wouldn't come remotely close to fulfilling the requirements of WP:CREATIVE, and that he's allegedly someone's manager bumps against the well-known principle that notability is not inherited. The article was shot down at Articles for Creation on three separate occasions over a two year span for a lack of reliable sources, and one would think that the string of anon IPs and SPAs that keep trying to put this article up would be better served by waiting until the subject's done something deemed worthy of notice by the world. Ravenswing 09:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity piece lacking in reliable sources. Pol430 talk to me 15:15, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamono

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

This subject of this article is a word, not an object, I can not find any reference to this word when searching the internet with Google search. The whole article is one sentence with no further attempt by the creator of the article to add any additional information to the article. This type of article is not what Wikipedia is about. This article should be deleted, it is unnecessary and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Samuraiantiqueworld, no-one seems to be using this term in hoplological circles, although there are a couple of mentions on the web (search "nagamono weapon" for some results, but none from reliable sources). Nonetheless, WP:DICTDEF applies, even in Japanese. My Japanese is sketchy, but wouldn't "nagamono" be translated as "long thing" rather than "long weapon"? Yunshui 雲‍水 11:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not found any verifiable sources such as books on the subject of martial arts that have "nagamono" used as a term but I did find this reference (Traditionally, noodles were called nagamono, which translates as "things that are long,") [24] The folk art of Japanese country cooking: a traditional diet for today's world‎. I found a few other references along the same line. I did find some martial arts web sites which use the term but if it was a commonly used term I would expect to it to come up in some of the martial arts books that are used for references in other martial arts articles.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have my paper dictionaries in front of me, but a search in Japanese on the web does not even turn up one instance of this kanji combination. Unless it is an aberrant reading, one would normally not read the kanji 槍薙 as "nagamono". Usually it would be something like "yarinagi", but since yari and nagi are different things, I don't see anyone using them together to nominate a single thing. I see from the article history that the user who created the article first used 長者 (literally, long thing or person) but changed the kanji later. The user contributed a lot to China-related articles, so I wonder if he/she is Chinese and is actually using a Chinese word here. I'll check my dictionaries at home later. Michitaro (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- These articles by user:陳鬼 all have no references, they are just one sentence articles based on a word taken from a martial arts web site, there is no research and it is just dumped on here, this is not what Wikipedia is about, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See Kyuba, Nagamonojutsu, Torimono Dougu, Kakushi Buki Jutsu, Jouhou Kaishuu, Chikujou, Angou, Intonjutsu}}

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing some of these terms indicates that at least a few are more widely mentioned than Nagamono - I'm therefore switching the speedy tags for WP:PROD instead, to give time for expansion; "unsourced" isn't a valid speedy criterion anyway. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC. --DAJF (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User DAJF has it exactly right. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- unsourced dictionary definitions. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Japanese does not stand up to scrutiny. The original kanji 長者 (nagamono) means "long person", and the present kanji 槍薙 can't be read "nagamono". It would probably be read as "yarinagi", only it's not in the dictionary... Maybe the author was thinking of naginata? There is a word 長物 (nagamono) but that means "a long round thing, like a pipe or other construction material". Also, no sources on Google. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:09, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aamoo the Aam

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

Multiple-article nomination. These articles are all unreferenced, and are all by the same author, about the same series of books. I didn't turn up any third-party coverage while searching for sources. Although they are educational books, they do not seem to satisfy criterion no. 5 of WP:BK. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other pages I am nominating are:

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Tokyogirl79's comment I would like to nominate two more articles for deletion. They are by the same author as the other articles nominated here, and I can't find any third-party coverage on these books either. All of the books listed here are also by the same publishing company, Chanda Books.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including recent additions.. There's nothing to show that these books are notable or that they're used widely enough (or at all) in classrooms that they'd pass any part of WP:BK. I also want to note that these books are self-published, with Chanda Books being run by the author and her family. (The books are put out via CreateSpace on Amazon, usually a sign that the author made her own publishing house which ended up being the case here.) Given that the contributing editor's name is "Hindibooks" and their edits were done solely for books put out by Chanda Books, I'm of the belief that these were all promotional edits by the author and/or her family. BTW, if it's not too late I'd like to ask that you add Sonu ke Afsane to this group nomination, as it's another unsourced and non-notable book put out by Chanda Books and added by the same editor.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I've added Sonu ke Afsane, plus another similar article, Sonu ke Kisse. Just to be on the safe side, could you confirm whether or not your delete recommendation extends to Sonu ke Kisse as well? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My recommendation absolutely extends to both of these books. Nothing by this publisher seems to be notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete all We really should have a special speedy deletion criterion for self-published books; the chances of them passing WP:NBOOK are so small as to be negligible. To no-one's surprise, none of the above meet the criteria there, nor the GNG, which is their only other chance to make the grade. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No indication of wp:notability. Zero references except for the self-publisher's web site. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Airlines Flight 475

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

Non notable aviation incident. William 02:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -William 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft was damaged beyond repair and written off because of the crash, so it meets WP:AIRCRASH. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a stand-alone article, only for a mention in the type article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hull loss is a criteria for a airport or aircraft articles, standalone articles must meet WP:GNG. I cite this 131 DC9 hull losses have taken place, 64 without fatalities, but just 1 of which has an article.

- This crash didn't change procedures, didn't involve anyone famous. News coverage was routine.- William 11:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AIRCRASH has two seperate criteria levels, which a lot of people who argue "it meets AIRCRASH, KEEP!" miss. Yes, this article meets the WP:AIRCRASH criterion for mentioning in the airline or aircraft article. However, it does not meet WP:AIRCRASH criterion for a stand-alone article. To wit: "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." This article fails on all three of those (WP:PERSISTENCE comes to mind as well). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned by both the above "keep" and "delete" advocates, it does pass WP:AIRCRASH, but it also passes the WP:GNG guideline per the extensive coverage. WP:NOT#NEWS is about, as it states, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which I don't think the coverage of this falls under the scope of. And honestly, a crash of a jetliner in which is was total loss yet all 154 people on it survived is a very significant incident in my book. Simply the historical nuance of at least one person dying as opposed to zero shouldn't be, and overall I don't think is, the only deciding factor to which we have articles. --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise merge with the airline. WP:AIRCRASH specifically mentions hull loss as a major contributor to notability of an accident. In severity, a runway overrun that destroys the airplane but with no fatalites is approximately on par with Air France Flight 358. Coverage tends to be sparser in English media when the accident is in the Phillipines rather than in Canada, but that does not really detract from notability or significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:15, 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, Wifione ^Message 09:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sjakkale's excellent observation re non-English sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment English news sources in the Philippines are very abundant.[25] I've lived there and my wife was born in the country.- William 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe they are, but that doesn't disqualify the use of non-English sources if they are also available. It's just that non-English sources are harder to use but is some cases they are likely to have significantly better coverage of the subject in question.
    - English news sources are definitely a lot easier to find in the internet than those written in the local languages. That said, this was never "headline news" when this happened. –H T D 17:58, 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. The "keep" !voters do not provide enough rationale/sources to keep this article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bodgeshwar temple, Mapusa

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

Dubious notability. Zzarch (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned it up and provided citations and a map link. It is certainly notable both locally and as a tourist attraction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep The little content is somewhat promotional in tone, weak on real content. Sourcing is very weak with respect to wp:notability. But ability to meet wp:notability looks likely. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — All sites are promotional sites, not reliable. The site is unlikely to meet the notability criteria. X.One ^SOS 12:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of RS to establish notability and per WP:NOTGUIDE Pol430 talk to me 15:22, 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. Clear consensus around Mentoz86's analysis that the subject does not satisfy the general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Håkon Winther

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

This was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Håkon Winther in August 2008 but then recreated on 11 June 2010 and deleted under G4 on 10 January 2012. This deletion was contested at DRV [26] and the deleting admin requested listing AFD - which is why we are here. The article at the time of the first deletion looked like this and at the second deletion looked like this. As this is a procedural listing, I am taking no position on this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - I will divide my conclusion in three parts, as there are three things that could make him notable. First: football-career - fails WP:NFOOTY, has not played in a fully professional league (The first AfD was mostly on his football-career). Second: playerhistory.com - fails WP:GNG, the fact that playerhistory.com has an article on wikipedia, does not make the founder notable for an article. As the founder of such a site, he could have been a "pundit" that media called for curious facts regarding football, but he isn't. The only thing I could find, is when he commented on Lutz Pfannenstiel becoming the first footballer to play in all six continents. Here you can see that 100% Fotball, a cooperation between several newspapers (five of the seven biggest, plus a lot of regional and local papers) in Norway on football-news, has written about him twice. Third: political career - 21 October 2008 he startet a political party named Hålogalandspartiet (source) and 25 October 2008 he withdrew from the party (source). Hålogalandspartiet did not participate in the election in 2009 (source), but I haven't figured out why. I haven't ever heard of either Håkon Winther or Hålogalandspartiet, so in my opinion his political career clearly fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Would be a straightforward 'delete' per Mentoz86's comprehensive analysis, but the fact that the majority of the cited sources are in Norwegian leaves me with little to verify the significance of his political career. Setting up a facebook group of 6000 members means nothing, but what of the significance of the resulting party? Either way, as Mentoz86 indicates, notability isn't inherited and this article subject's personal notability is not established to my mind. The minor league football career and website founding can be discounted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Mentoz86, excellent analysis. Giant Snowman 09:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from the obvious COI problems with an WP:AUTO, I believe Mentoz86 has well illustrated the reasons why the article does not conform to our policies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mentoz86 research. Non-notable as a footballer (hasn't played in a fully professional league), and as a politician (he wasn't elected at a political office). Fails WP:GNG as well. – Kosm1 fent 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentoz did a great job pointing out why he wouldn't be notable if he were just a politician. He also did a great job pointing out why he wouldn't be notable if he were just a football player. Again, he did a great job pointing out why he wouldn't be notable if he had just set up the playerhistory site. I did not see anything addressing whether all of these things together make him notable enough for an article. Here is one mention I found of him concerning the political party: [27].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if you understand Norwegian, but this blog wonders what have happened to Hålogalandspartiet (now renamed to Regionspartiet), and mentions Winther, since he is the founder of the party (even though he resigned after 4 days). I still believe it's too little to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if he has engaged in three activities, in none of which he is notable, the fact that he does all three of them does not make him notable. People need to be notable in some one thing. It's more characteristically argued of society figures. but it applies here also. Anyone can easily be unimportant in as many things as he chooses. (I'm not notable as a librarian nor as a biochemist, but there are very few librarians who are also biochemists--does that make me notable?) DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Agreed. The Devil's Advocate is fair to mention that notability can be determined from more than one field/profession. But in this case, most people !voting in the AFD appear to believe that the subject's exploits in various areas are not demonstrated to combine to push him over the notability threshold. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Following DGG's comment, 0+0+0=0. The concept of "notability" begins with the GNG, which holds that a subject be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources. The premise behind subordinate criteria such as WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NSPORTS and WP:CREATIVE is that someone who meets them is presumed by that fact alone to be able to satisfy the GNG. If you can't meet WP:POLITICIAN as a political figure, you probably didn't meet the GNG. If you can't meet WP:NSPORTS as an athlete, you probably didn't meet the GNG. Ravenswing 10:08, 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 speedy close - this article is already at AfD.. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SR-72(plane)

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

Notability, Existence, Figment of editors imagination, you name it Petebutt (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - This is already at AfD!!!!! See "1st Nomination" link above... 08:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SuperStar KZ. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeniy Gartung

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. No RS hits at all on gbooks and gnews combined. Searching his name in Cyrillic turns up zero gnews hits, and minimal gbooks hits. My understanding is that placing 4th on a version of Pop Idol does not by itself confer notability on a singer. Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SuperStar KZ. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Grossi

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. If he was really Grammy nominated, he might meet WP:NMG, but I could not verify this claim. bender235 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP and I could not verify claims. Written as a false advertisment and list. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 15:27, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Zero sources except his own web site which is a dead link ("under construction") Uses vague/tricky wording to create/justify namedropping lists. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 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 redirect to Zoids. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Liger

AfDs for this article:

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

Rounding up two strays from a much larger cull of Zoids articles from way back. First nom cited issues of failing WP:GNG due to lack of real-world context and WP:RS and being a melange of trivia and original research. Three years on and I don't think much has changed, it's still lacking any cites (my own searches for cites didn't yield anything, plenty of fansites but nothing from a reliable third party source), suffers still from the same issues as presented for the others.

Also included in this nom is the following for reasons stated above:

Liger Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

tutterMouse (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids per failing the WP:GNG. Probably goes better on a fan wiki for Cull of Zoids. A412 (Talk * C) 00:05, 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 no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edificio Olympo

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

Unremarkable building in relation to height. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Building has interesting and remarkable architecture. Also, meets the requirements of Wikipedia and Category:Skyscrapers between 50 and 99 meters. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 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) 00:00, 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) 15:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything that would constitute it being any bit notable. The only way this would pass GNG is if there was something exceptional about the architecture or use but there isn't, it's a pretty standard multi-use builidng. tutterMouse (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Subtropical-man, what are the requirements of Category:Skyscrapers between 50 and 99 meters? Location (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Re: These "between 50 and 99 meters". :) Subtropical-man (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I inferred from your earlier comment that there was a difference between a notable building that is 50 to 99 meters tall and a non-notable building that is 50 to 99 meters tall. I don't think that all buildings that fit in the category are necessarily notable. Location (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: I has different opinion. Also building has interesting and remarkable architecture. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you cite a source for that claim? W.E. (talk) 13:51, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:59, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derreck Kayongo

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

Nominating per outcome of discussion here.

Original reason: This is one of ten bios created from a CNN award for "a normal person, they're doing a normal job," to quote CNN itself. Point is, this is WP:ONEEVENT and also a good example of how widespread coverage in a national publication can still occasionally not be an indication of notability. In fact, I think that this set of articles is the textbook definition of BLP1E.

Of course what these individuals are doing is great, but it can be sufficiently covered in an article about the CNN Heroes series/award. We don't need new BLPs to do that either.

I'm nominating those that don't have coverage outside of the CNN related coverage. A few entries have additional external links so I am not nominating those. This particular nom only applies to this article. Shadowjams (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I agreed with deletion for Bruno Serato and Amy Stokes, but Kayongo has sufficient coverage online for his work in Global Soap in GNEWS archives (apart from the WP:BLP1E coverage of him getting the CNN award) to meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Filing Flunky (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 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) 00:06, 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) 15:23, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:57, 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 redirect to Wild 'n Out. If there's anyone who does't agree with the redirecting, do tell... Not much of an issue. Wifione ^Message 11:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deric Battiste

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

nonnotable DJ/performer. IMDB credits are minimal, no coverage outside his profile at the tv show he cues music for. birth record is of course not proof of notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Seems far more sourceable under his stage name of D-Wrek. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:17, 27 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found this new link, [28], may not be enough. he made it to the playboy mansion, [29], but all we have is a photo.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:00, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Saturday Night article is almost enough for WP:N notability, along with other brief mentions, such as The New York Times noting that he is the DJ-scorekeeper on the TV series. [30] Since it's not quite enough for a separate article, I'd suggest redirect to Wild 'n Out, the TV show for which he is mainly known. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 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) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carpe Diem (media agency)

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

Firm does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per nominator; most sources in the article appear to simply be press releases created by the agency. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An utterly unremarkable website design business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable, still no reliable sources here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, almost an advert. Grillo7 (talk) 22:11, 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 no consensus. Wifione ^Message 11:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bolero, Sarajevo

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

This dance theatre event appears to have been performed on a single occasion, for the opening of a separate festival. It received minimal press coverage at the time, and does not appear to have ever been performed again. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A one-off event can still be notable, but in this case I'm not seeing sources to confirm that. The sources seem to be of the announcement variety. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:18, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I have a found a number of sources in original language and I have added some of them. I will still add other ones as well but am not sure how many I need to add in order to prove that this event was notable? It was an international co-production of distinguished regional artists (East West Theatre Company from Sarajevo, BH and TALA Dance Center from Zagreb, Croatia) and this production opened a major international festival (PLATFORMA). The show was directed by an influential director Haris Pasovic and recived international press and internet coverage. However, if this is not enough, I will find more resources and add them to the list of references. I would appreciate if you checked them and add your own input. Thanks. Bizutage (talk) 11:01, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Makan Art Association

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

Though it certainly exists, I am having trouble finding substantial RS coverage of this art association. Tagged for zero refs since September. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Organizations are held by a very high standard in order to be notable. They are not inherently. See WP:ORG guidelines. Stedrick (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 27 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) 18:56, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:53, 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 no consensus. Wifione ^Message 11:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-Smiles

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

De-PRODed article with no sources (apart from its home page) and no indications of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is coverage in books: [31], [32], [33] -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All three refs show only that X-Smiles has at least five part-time users. The works keep focused on their topics using X-Smiles as a test environment. Given that all works belong to the period of infancy of the respective technologies, the choice of testbed should be considered an indication of software's capabilities, which are not directly translatable to notability (which can't be established from these sources). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:38, 14 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reason(s) will be added later. mabdul 07:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:22, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Homeschool Guide

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

No references included in the article, and I can't find any reliable sources online (GNews, Web, Books) that discuss this publication under its current or former name. I don't doubt that it exists, but unless other publications have discussed it, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I'm sure it's a useful resource, I cannot find any indication that it meets WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also failed to find any sources that look like they satisfy our guideline on identifying reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find substantial RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 19 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. Wifione ^Message 11:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ua Maol Dhómhnaigh

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot source "Ua Maol Dhómhnaigh". I can find Maloneys, O'Maloneys etc, and can verify the the motto [34], but not the title of this article. I can't figure out what do do with it, and it is all original research (some of the first person has been removed, but some is still in the article). I just deleted one section on an alleged current clan which seemed to be promotional. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This surname is in no way notable. Vincelord (talk) 15:51, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I can confirm that Ua Maol Dhómnaigh is a lesser-used Irish translation for Maloney/Moloney/etc. (the normal one being Ó Maol Domhnaigh), but delete as having no clear notability. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Fire

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

Prod contested by an IP address. Article completely lacks any reliable sources showing nontrivial coverage to demonstrate notability to have an article on Wikipedia. Only mentions of this publication are by other nonnotable publications / blogs. DreamGuy (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a relatively minor SF magazine, but as far as I can tell it is pretty respected in the Speculative Fiction Small Press world (especially for the reviews site, which is widely quoted), and I don't see what would be gained by deleting from Wikipedia all articles on small magazines that are not widely discussed in print or mainstream venues. This article has existed since 2006, been edited a few dozen times in that time, and is referenced in several other articles (even if you exclude the two templates it is listed in). I don't think it should be deleted. Gabrielbodard (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:58, 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) 15:27, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:51, 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) 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RASCargO (cargo screening system)

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

This article was written by a non-neutral editor, and it does not appear to be notable - little to nothing is written about it in reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohn joe (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparent WP:COI, apparent copyright problems, WP:ADVERTISING, lack of secondary sources. Haus^Talk 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding extemely tangential/weak coverage in WP:RS. There might something out there to warrant an article, but the current one is pretty unsalvageably spammy and would likely have to be WP:TNTed. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. One source is their own web site, the other has nothing about them. No content worth saving with possible notability in mind. The whol earticle looks like their sales brochure pasted into a Wikpedia page. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 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) 00:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pestpop

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

I am having difficulty finding substantial rs coverage of this music festival. Others are welcome to try. Zero independent refs in the article itself. Tagged for notability since October. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly unsourced and I'm not seeing anything. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing to show notability. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 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 redirect (to Model United Nations). Closing without objection. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North American Invitational Model United Nations

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

While passing references to this organization abound, I can find no in-depth coverage, failing WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I suggest a redirect to Model United Nations. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:54, 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.

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MikroKopter

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:ORG. The references given are either not independent or do not mention the company. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference http://www.u-blox.com/en/press-and-events/press-release-archive/1197-mikrokopter-captures-precision-photos-and-videos-using-u-blox-gps.html is both independent and mentions the company. Paul venter (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a press release, which is a piece of promotional material produced by the company, which the company then pays a website to host the material. Not independant. Angryapathy (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible independent news source: [35]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 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) 15:23, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:51, 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 merge to Houston Astros minor league players. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bailey

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

Minor league baseball player. Might be notable someday, but now he fails WP:ATHLETE Courcelles 04:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, he's an active minor leaguer, suggesting he should be merged to Houston Astros minor league players. On the other hand, there is barely any sourcing on him, and parts of the page are plagiarized from his Nebraska bio. If he is merged, most of the content should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, merge. I'll delete the copyvio text. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Houston Astros minor league players. Alex (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Drjem3 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal note: might want to keep material on him. Drjem3 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and recreate when he's on the active roster/40 man roster and more notable. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 06:30, 19 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 Babakathy, one of the editors commenting in this AfD, wishes to have the contents of the article, I can userfy it to the editor on request. Wifione ^Message 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man out of the house (welfare rule)

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

I tried to clean this up a little, but after finding that source after source had nothing to do with the topic, I'm increasingly uncertain that it is a topic at all. Cannot find sufficient discussion in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: moved from Man out of the house (welfare rule) to Man-in-the-house --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-insufficient sources for an article that seems to have been created merely to push a personal or political POV. He iro 04:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect badly malformed stub that consists of nothing more than a couple of quotes, briefly mentioning the topic as part of wider discussions. No indication that this specific rule has received any "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately redirect to Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- as what little mention of this rule exists appears to be purely in connection with this (now-defunct) federal assistance program. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopelessly POV. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and userfy. Nom deleted 3 sources which looked to me like they were on topic. Also, if the article was (or is now) promoting a POV, what viewpoint would that be? In other words, does the article lean toward one side in the controversy over whether welfare rules "deny welfare benefits to families headed by a heterosexual couple, on the grounds that an able-bodied man ought to support his wife and children"? If so, then by all means let's fix the article by finding sources for the other point of view. For almost any political idea, we can usually find support for the opposite idea. Why not help me do it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: moved from Man out of the house (welfare rule) to Man-in-the-house, because recent sources I have found use the term "man-in-the-house" more often. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unbelievably confused and confusing article. As Hrafn says, this article is really about the AFDC, which we already have an article on so this falls under CSD:A10. "man-in-the-house" does not seem to be a common phrase so I don't see a strong case for redirecting. The article doesn't define the term properly - nothing in the AFDC rules appear to specify heterosexual couples, for example. It uses references incorrectly - Sam Brownback isn't mentioned in the reference that quotes him, for example. Its full of synthesis, for example the quote "This feature created a clear disincentive for marriage and also a clear incentive for divorce" is used to support the article's claim that the rule promotes matriarchy, but it doesn't. The external link to the Daily Mail article has nothing to do with a man-in-the-house rule, but seems to be there to broaden the article's scope beyond just the AFDC; it does not and again is subtle original research. Sparthorse (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Man-in-the house" policies gets 53 million Google hits, so while it may not be a familiar term to you it in nevertheless out there in the real world.
1. Here's one from Harvard Law School: "Former federal welfare rules allowed states to condition eligibility upon the sexual morality of recipients by enforcing “suitable-home” or “man-in-the-house” rules." [36]
If the article doesn't define the term properly, the solution is to correct the definition; e.g., if the word "heterosexual" is the problem just delete it. Any reference that's improperly used can be deleted; that has nothing to do with whether the topic is notable. It's relevant to the history of welfare benefits in the USA, anyway.
- And if the article appears to claim that the rule promotes matriarchy, that should be changed to clarify that certain advocates made that claim; for NPOV balance, we can cite those who (like contributor Sparthouse) say that it doesn't. With 50 million Google hits, finding such a source should be easy.
- Finally, if anyone prefers to shrink the article's scope, so that it focuses only on the Man-in-the-house rule, that's okay with me; the last thing I would want is an article that contains original research or synthesis.
None of the problems with the article are justifications for not having information on the topic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 53 million Google hits are mostly not about this topic. The problem with the matriarchy claim is that you don't have a single source that supports this - in other words its your conclusion that man-in-the-house rules promote matriarchy, not any advocates'. And yes, the scope of an article about the "man-in-the-house" rule should definitely be the "man-in-the-house" rule. Once you scope the article to its subject, there is nothing here to be said that should not be in the AFDC since everything I've seen so far shows that the man-in-the-house rule is only discussed in the context of the AFDC. Its already covered adequately in that article. At most, a redirect to AFDC is all that's justified. Sparthorse (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but transfer material to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Babakathy (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material will require a substantial rewrite before its suitable for inclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:17, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronical Moshers Open Air

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

Non-notable festival. Lacks rs refs. Tagged for notability and lack of refs since October. Epeefleche (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 27 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice little death/black metal festival with about 1000 visitors every year. Sources are on the web, but only in German and all are announcements or blogs and web forums. That's their festival tent and here is an interwiew with the organizer on You Tube [37] (in German/Saxonian dialect). Bands playing there have members that have/had a "day job", see Debauchery (band). So it should be a delete, but I won't vote against a Metal festival. If someone else could ... --Ben Ben (talk) 22:39, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:29, 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. per BIODEL Wifione ^Message 11:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Akiyama

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

The article has been here for 2007, but I do not think the positions held amount to notability , nor the references to significant coverage DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. I found some local news stories mentioning her, but I don't think they're good enough for WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 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 keep. Snow close. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counterparts (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about non-notable band. Does not fulfill WP:MUSIC or the WP:GNG A412 (Talk * C) 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem notable per WP:MUSIC. Note that the first AFD appears to have been about a completely different band with the same name. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Rock Sound [38] The Aquarian Weekly [39] Blistering [40] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is additional coverage at Exclaim! [41]; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 05:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND criterion #1, based on the sources identified above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. benzband (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Band #1. Fixed linkrot. Added citations above excpet review of album from Blistering. Not allowed per WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE.Argolin (talk) 06:49, 19 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 Heterosexuality. Wifione ^Message 11:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual couple

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

Reads like a dictionary definition. It consists entirely of a personal commentary on a hard-to-define entity (as seems to be the style of the author...) and is totally unreferenced. The relevant material is covered by various other articles. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Full agreement with nom. AV3000 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Full agreement with the noms reasonings. He iro 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ - I need time to clarify this hard-to-define entity. Clearly I've bitten off more than I can chew here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like prose, completely unreferenced. Czolgolz (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopaedia articles are supposed to read like prose. Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Heterosexuality. Nothing can possibly be said about the former that would not be covered by the latter. bd2412 T 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Wikipedia is not for dictionary definitions. Sparthorse (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. I am happy to see that the term POSSLQ is still around from the See Also links though. Carrite (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find a suitable redirect target. This is a plausible search term and it should not be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Simply delete and redirect to Heterosexuality. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect: I'm changing my input from 'userfy' to 'redirect', per S Marshall: it's a plausible search term; but I don't see a future for this article as a separate topic. Let's wait till a section in Heterosexuality gets too big for its britches. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced OR. Dictionary entry. Of no encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heterosexuality. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 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 delete. Wifione ^Message 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DL Viewer

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

I found nothing that would make this software pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lukart66: (talk) 18.45, 29 December 2011 Almost everyone using a MS-Dos computer in the 90ies knew this small computer program, just as now we all know vlc... In most of the BBS (bulletin boards) you could find a DL animation file area dedicated the animations you could view with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukart66 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The comment above is the article creator. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 15:31, 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) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable piece of software. Kuguar03 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim of notability. The only result that Google seemed to return is this article. External links appear to consist of the author's own home page, a Facebook group set up by the author (with comments by 2 (two) other people over the 3 years it has existed) and a site with a long list of file extensions. The last suggests an image file format ".dl" exists but gives no more details. Other "file extension" sites return nothing. This article appears to also have been written by the author. My conclusion is that the only source is the author. Whilst it might have existed it certainly doesnt appear notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:21, 6 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:29, 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. Wifione ^Message 11:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Potion

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

This article was deprodded with an edit summary that suggested that sources for this article could be found in a Google Books search. Such a search reveals five hits, the first of which is not a reliable source and the second and last of which only list this EP along with other albums, not providing any information about the EP. Only the SPIN and Option sources are valid, and both only mention this EP in passing; neither constitutes significant coverage of the EP. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foetus (band). There just aren't enough sources to show that this album is particularly notable outside of the band. I did the book search as well, but didn't find anything except for very brief mentions.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Two of the four books returned by Google refer incidentally to covers of the song by other artists and not this EP, one is an incidental mention of the song and not this EP by professional entomologists who are excited by all that is butterfly, and one likely duplicates the article we're discussing (see Books LLC). Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:15, 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 with reference to BIODEL. Wifione ^Message 11:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goby Catt

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUS. Google returns only listings and other trivial mentions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ::A search through "Newsbank, Australian Newspaper" for "Goby Catt" has zero results. --LauraHale (talk) 09:20, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Empire Films

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

Non-notable film company. No references. A search for reliable sources gets only Facebook and Carbonmade. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article kinda says it all: "Black Empire Films, is a student run production company in Mumbai". Just as the nominator notes, it can be found only on SPS and networking sites. While I wish these students the best of luck, this one fails WP:ORG until it actually gets some coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to be notable at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 03:54, 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 Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Waving Song

AfDs for this article:

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

Although originally nominated in bad faith, there is no indication that this article (sourced only to the uni) on a uni sports song does or will ever meet our inclusion guidelines. Mt king ^(edits) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls. postdlf (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If sources can't be found, Merge per Postdlf. Patken4 (talk) 21:57, 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 West Virginia Mountaineers. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hail, West Virginia

AfDs for this article:

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

Although originally nominated in bad faith, there is no indication that this unsourced article on a uni sports song does or will ever meet our inclusion guidelines. Mt king ^(edits) 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I doubt that no reliable sources have ever written about a 100-year old fight song for the 17 teams of an American university with 30,000 students, the article is small enough that merger to West Virginia Mountaineers is quite reasonable, and indeed should have been done rather than taking this to AFD. postdlf (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If sources can't be found, Merge to West Virginia Mountaineers. Patken4 (talk) 21:58, 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 Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ride 'Em Cowboys

AfDs for this article:

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

Although originally nominated in bad faith, there is no indication that this unsourced article on a uni sports song does or will ever meet our inclusion guidelines. Mt king ^(edits) 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls. postdlf (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If sources can't be found, Merge per Postdlf. Patken4 (talk) 21:59, 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 Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saxa (food product)

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

I was unable to find anything that shows notability. This brand of salt and pepper fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Brand is very well-known in UK. I have added some quick refs. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – References to reliable sources indicate notability. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Independent ref to it as among "Britain's best-known food brands". AllyD (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even a bad piece is better than no Saxa at all. Carrite (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lasting notability. It is disappointing that we do not have good sources yet, but the story of how this became one of the most instantly recognisable brands in the UK and apparently Australia and South Africa would make a good topic. It began as a brand name of Cerebos in 1907, but there may be more to that as Cerebos was itself an established salt brand. It is inconceivable that it has not been explored in more than one study. --AJHingston (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Very well known in the UK by most people, and possibly the best known brand of salt. I have occasionally heard "truckload of Saxa" being used as an exaggeration of "pinch of salt". --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider this withdrawn. For something so well known, the article sure sucks. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've just added a Journal of Consumer Marketing reference, but there must be many others. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:43, 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.