Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 January	4 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 speedy deleted per WP:G12 by Amatulic (talk · contribs). Begonia brandbygeana (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kauffman

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

While the subject might be notable this article appears to mostly be an advertisement for the management company with a big dose of COI as well. Eeekster (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R1soft Hyper-V VHD Explorer

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

I found no significant coverage for this product. The only source in the article is the official website. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: one in a million of similar freeware tools. Though google reveals some news coverage, a tool of a kind receives such coverage just for its existence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability in the article. Zzarch (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo Sandberg

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

No indications of notability. This article appears to be based entirely on a memoir written by the subject's son and self-published on webs.com. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a mention on Google Books and one in NRC Handelsblad (behind paywall). Not conclusive though to show notability. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't really understand this nomination: there is plenty of indication of notability. Sure, the article is a memorial and needs to be rewritten; it is unsourced and needs to be sourced. But he looks like a war hero to me, and the Dutch don't have many of them. The "Vliegerkruis" is the Airman's Cross (snippet here), and they couldn't have handed out many of them for actions during World War II, considering that the Dutch Airforce consisted of a couple of Fokkers and a dozen bicycles. I have no doubt sources can be found, and I'll try to find them. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a 950 word obituary in NRC Handelsblad, a major Dutch newspaper, which should establish notability. It's 28th October 1998, p.20. Unfortunately I can't add it because I don't speak Dutch.Scratch that, he appears to be the author of the NRC article, not the subject!--Eklektikos (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just have a look at his medals, several of them are from other countries then the Netherlands. Today was decided to keep the article on the Dutch Wiki. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually saw this article at new page patrol and decided not to do anything about it, not knowing enough in this area, although the article was clearly problematic. Since then, it has come a long way and now actually looks like something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Unless someone has evidence that his medals/awards were made up, I think this establishes notability. The article still needs sources, which may not be easy as for biographies of people that were know in earlier days are not always easy to find online (Back To Paper! Burn Your Kindle!). Perhaps it would be possible to find an obituary. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guillaume2303 S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Long-established practice is that major geographic features are notable. Sandstein 06:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Vacii River

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

One-sentence stub, no reliable sources about 10 pages into Google, seems non-notable. Pilif 12p 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verified geographic feature, if the book sources are to be taken in good faith. Since Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, geographic features are considered worthy of inclusion. Google may not be the best way to find sources, since the subject is in a non-English-speaking country. (Searching "Valea Vacii" turns up more results, but since "Valea" is Romanian for "valley", that probably refers to the valley and not the river.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For geographic features, reliable sources are not only articles or books, but mainly maps. The river is represented on all detailed maps of the region. As far as notability is concerned, the Wikipedia rules do not provide any limits for geographic features - if the geographic feature exists it qualifies for an article.

Besides the river is part of the officially codified river network of Romania. The article indicates this official code which is used by authorities to identify the river. This in itself should justify the notability which been assessed by the water authorities of the country. Afil (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet vs Amazon Kindle Fire

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

Bit of an odd one this, I can't really see how it's encyclopedic. The two subjects are clearly notable, but a comparison? My deletion rationale is based around WP:NOTCASE or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Pol430 talk to me 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports magazine. Carrite (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The bulk of this information is already available in the Comparison of tablet computers article, but anything else of value should be merged to that article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. This isn't a guidebook to new tablets and this stuff is already covered elsewhere.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete interesting, but properly does not belong here. Maxdlink (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparent content fork of Comparison of tablet computers. Also violates wp:NOTCASE, as pointed out by the nominator. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the incident is not notable enough to warrant coverage in an article. Sandstein 07:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air India Flight 829

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

non notable incident. Doesn't meet WP:aircrash William 22:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -William 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This accident does meet WP:AIRCRASH in that there was serious damage to the aircraft. Whilst I can't say for definite that the aircraft was written off, there are no photos of the aircraft in flight after the date of the accident. Both pilots and an ground engineer were suspended post-accident. Mjroots (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete The description in the article falls short of the kind of serious damage that appears contemplated in WP:AIRCRASH. However, if someone has evidence the aircraft was indeed totaled, or even seriously damaged, by the fire, keeping the article would be in keeping with the policy. The lack of post-incident photos isn't prima facie evidence the aircraft was totaled. The article Air India fleet indicates that Air India owns five 747-400's (aka 747-437) and a note indicates "2 to be leased out, 1 stored" so there are reasons other than the aircraft being seriously damaged or totaled that it hasn't been observed in service. Circumspect (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The usual source for discovering whether a plane was written off or not is Aviation Safety Network. ASN doesn't even have an entry for this incident and anybody who knows ASN knows how comprehensive their database is.- William 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's covered under the ASN Wikibase, which isn't suitable for use as a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Why isn't ASN suitable as a reference in this instance? You've edited many crash articles and know that ASN is used as a source in many of them. It is also the only source usually for whether a plane is written off or not.- William 18:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the ASN Wikibase, which fails WP:RS, as it's similar to any other Wiki. The ASN Database however, is a RS. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASN (not really a reliable source as a self-published website) says damage to aircraft was minor. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable incident. Didnt even generate all that much press.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, consensus to keep reached (no more delete arguments) Tone 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cockbridge

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cockbridge

Articles for deletion/Cockbridge (2nd nomination)

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

~~the subject is non notable, unverifiable (no sources at all) and has no prospect for expansion. U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

I withdraw this nomination... didn't realise it has already been discussed. Sorry. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous articles are discussed multiple times here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-based on its protected cultural heritage status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any non-WP sources on its alleged Slovenian name. Might this be a joke? I'll change my vote if someone can verify this with some sources.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Changed to Keep per the listed heritage status below. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Keep as listed heritage structure, per Eleassar below. Clearly, more can be added with time. The Slovenian name appears to refer to a male chicken, not a part of the human male anatomy, and there is a Cockbridge in Scotland. One of the contributors to the last AfD said that they knew Ljubljana well and it was not notable, from which I infer that it exists. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not treat every bridge as notable, even if the name when translated into English might amuse some schoolchildren. --AJHingston (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is basically nothing available about this bridge apart from its ___location. Can be mentioned in a list of bridges in Ljubljana or similar, but at this point there is no need for a separate article. --Tone 12:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with finding more content. Now happily changing my opinion to keep (though it is far from a comprehensive article). --Tone 16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly Merge to Gradaščica or elsewhere. There are several other one-sentence (as of now) articles about notable bridges in Ljubljana. The Cock Bridge in Ljubljana actually exists and is notable, because it was built upon the plans by the architect Jože Plečnik and because it has been protected as cultural heritage.[1][2] (in the textbox) An image is available online[3], and as it is between the Eipper Street and the Gradaška Street, the ___location is exactly known.[4] Probably, more on this bridge could be found in the National Library of Slovenia or elsewhere. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence about why it is notable and a source. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on its protected cultural heritage status. Doremo (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gradaščica or maybe keep. We now have notability (sortof), source(s) and a ___location. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National monument, sources exist. Thanks to Eleassar for starting expansion and referencing; hopefully more can be added and surely some local Wikipedian can take a pic. Unfortunately I cannot read the language to help, but there must be at least one more source out there, perhaps in a book on the architect. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 5 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) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scooby-Doo Project

To watch the 9 minute video on YouTube, visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsA6_Qh_jw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.124.130 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is also a non notable scooby-doo episode. I couldn't find any reliable source. mabdul 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a non-notable promo Cartoon Network made from already existing Scooby-Doo footage with a thin plot, redubbed voices, and rushed 'animation' to cash in on Blair Witchmania, something they did for alot of pop culture references in the late 90's with many of their classic shows. Nothing notable to be found, just internal promos only remembered by the crufters who just need to move on into the present. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I remember this and while it was a very cute animation promo, it wasn't an actual episode and it doesn't have any reliable sources to show how this is notable enough for a wikipedia entry. This is the type of thing that is best left to fan wikias to keep track of.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Abundis

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

Doesn't look like much information is added to the article. It has no importance in my opinion. Creation7689 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I also looked carefully through the various Google searches and found nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been dealt with via {{db-person}} or {{prod blp}}, imo. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Coastal Refinery

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

Not notable and no notability asserted. This may partly because the refinery doesn't actually exist yet as both the only two references make clear. Speculative and crystal ball gazing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clearly established. I added some references, but there a lot of more media coverage, including by the mainstream agencies like Reuters. Also disagree with CRYSTALBALL as details of the planned project are published and available by different media sources. Beagel (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient substantial RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:42, 8 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 School District 44 North Vancouver. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braemar Elementary School

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

School through grade 7. Convention with such schools is (I understand) to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Zero refs here, and thus zero RS-supported text to consider merging. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Tagged for lack of refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 44 North Vancouver, per the lack of sourcing. NLinpublic (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - cannot see the point in redirecting to an unreferenced nd poss copyvio list. Fmph (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any clear evidence of Copyvio on that page. Please provide diffs or a Duplication Detector report. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fmph, if you are suggesting that School District 44 North Vancouver is possibly copyvio, there is other evidence that this school belongs to that district, so I don't see any problems with a redirect. NLinpublic (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per usual practice for elementary schools. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 44 North Vancouver as per usual practice based on precedent for primary schools. Note that Outcomes may be an essay but it simply documents facts as they are without expressing opinion, and '...is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines and i don't feel redirect is worthwhile.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:33, 8 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. Tone 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley/Allentown AHL team

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

article based on an assumption that a yet to be built arena (Allentown Arena) will host a specific team (Adirondack Phantoms). I don't believe there's been any acknowledgement, let alone statement, from the American Hockey League regarding any relocation yet. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure speculation and crystal balling at this point. Once an official announcement is made no prejudice on recreating. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also delete speculatory redirects Lehigh Valley Phantoms and Allentown Phantoms. TerminalPreppie (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and DJSasso. I could see a redirect to the arena if I squint really hard, but I don't think this is a particularly viable search term, so deletion seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalish speculation until an official announcement has been made. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Who's to say that the Flyers' organization doesn't change their minds? Glens Falls is, after all, an established, traditional AHL market. Ravenswing 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though there is probably a better than 50/50 chance this happens, it's too early. If an official announcement is ever made, then the article can be re-created. For now, it's speculation. Patken4 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should this be userfied in case an announcement is made soon? Patken4 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There nothing substantial in the article, and a lot of it is pure speculation (color scheme etc). TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't imagine that an announcement could be made "soon" or even "in the foreseeable future" when ~~ground hasn't even been broken~~ a contractor hasn't even yet been chosen to build the arena. Beyond that, look ... would it take any of us as much as a half hour to create such an article? Userfying is useful when there are references and information that would be difficult to compile. This isn't such a case. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They started demolishing buildings in November of 2011. I live a block from the arena. Everything's been official for awhile. Not sure why this was ever deleted.
  - Beyond that any admin can hit the undelete button and get everything back anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable enough for an article. The "keep" opinions do not address the analysis of the quality of the sources, instead going on at length about tangential issues such as other articles or user conduct. Sandstein 08:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Mehmood Khan

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

This analysis is essentially a summary of NLinpublic (talk · contribs)'s discussion here. Using this version of the page, there are seven sources. None indicate notability per either WP:N or WP:PROF. That is, none discuss the subject of the page in detail; instead, most are citations of the individual's work indicating he has written articles for newspapers and the like. Below are the seven sources used:

[5] dead
[6] An article written by Khan, which does not establish notability
[7] A page indicating he is an alumni of "National Defense University"; a source, not an indication of notability
[8] Khan is cited by another author - not an extensive discussion, merely two brief paragraphs in which Khan is quoted (it's a little more complicated than that, but irrespective does not establish notability)
[9] One of Khan's articles is mentioned as a see also in an academic paper, no indication of notability
[10] As with 5, Khan's work is used as a see also rather than an actual discussion of Khan himself; does not establish notability
[11] A third example of Khan being cited, not being discussed (on page 28, footnote 5)
A variety of external links have been added to the bottom of the page; these all appear to be written by rather than written about Khan and thus do not establish notability.

There is no demonstration of notability in that there is no discussion of Khan, his actions or his publications. An academic (or in this case an analyst) being cited does not establish notability. Since NLinpublic's analysis, additional pieces written by Khan have been added [12] but none are about him. There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding notability - merely having published pieces is not sufficient to pass notability; the page's subject must be demonstrated independently notable through discussion by others. Since the page's subject is from Pakistan, we could use Urdu sources per WP:NOENG if they can be located but to date none have been integrated into the page (and would require careful vetting due to translation issues, natch). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate delete - My (very) full rationale is linked above, and there's more discussion on the talk page that might be worth reading, most of which (an example) I participated in. The gist of it is that Khan writes a lot, but doesn't have anything written about him and fails the GNG and ACADEMIC. NLinpublic (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not determined by what happens to be in the article right now. The question is: is there evidence of notability anywhere? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we aren't to judge what's in the article right now, then what do we judge? Potential? The article has been heavily edited and added to, and you aren't going to find many other good sources easily. NLinpublic (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm asking whether anyone knows of further sources. I don't. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone knew of other sources it probably wouldn't be at AfD, would it? </dry> :p NLinpublic (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... NLinpublic (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - I'm very surprised to find that such a well-known analyst as Khan is barely mentioned by anyone else, but such seems to be the case. It is conceivable that he's widely discussed in Urdu or other non-English languages, and I feel we ought to check properly that that's not the case before we delete - help, anyone? But apart from that we have no choice, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOENG, if such sources are available then they can be used to demonstrate notability. Naturally, this will open the unpleasant can of worms that is translation. However, until these sources are found, the point is moot. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination in the face of acceptable sources in Urdu or other languages, but until they appear... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have tried to save the article,giving main points and tips of the reliable sources to verify the notability of the subject in Urdu.But unfortunately it has been ignored rather than providing the sources that would establish WP:Notability. I have already searched the google in English and Urdu,but found nothing,even not just one reliable source to qualify the notability of the subject.Thus I support the move by User:WLU. Justice007 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: #1 has been archived on web.archive.org: Adil, Farooq. " General’s Gospel." The Financial Daily. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says: "As for the conflict prevention and resolution, Kayani has taken hosts of measures. In response to post-Mumbai war rhetoric of India’s politico-military elite, Gen Kayani resorted to tri-pronged defence diplomacy, according the defence analyst Ehsan Mahmood Khan."
- Unfortunately the discussion seems to be citing his words, but it does not seem to discuss the person himself in detail.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also is the Urdu name indicated in the English article written correctly? When I do a Google search of "احسان محمود خان" I only get this Wikipedia article and Wikipedia mirrors.
- FourDaysLife says that the Urdu for the full name is correct, but it may also be written in Urdu as "Ehsan Khan" or "Khan" - ""احسان خان" and "خان" " WhisperToMe (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition has he been discussed or published under the name "Ehsan Khan"? Are there other spellings of the name that have been used? Has anybody searched with the word "Mahmood"? or Has anybody searched with the word "Mahmoud"?
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply: First,the creator of the subject should know the correct spelling of the name and full information and sources that verify the WP:Notability , if not then creator should not take a risk to creat article on the wikipedia having not one reliable source.

Second,in google search,if you a well known person with wrong spelling clicking,in google search automatically appear,"Do you mean that"? and then with wrong and right spelling both names information displays. For the surety, I searched again the names mentioned in your comment,but find nothing except actors,dancers and singers etc. Justice007 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean different spellings (not necessarily wrong ones per se, because names in languages used in Pakistan can be written multiple ways in English). While alternate spellings may come up, they don't always. For instance I can search "Yugi Muto" (fictional character in Yu-Gi-Oh!) but Google won't tell me that there are many other ways of spelling both his given and family names (Muto, Mutoh, Mutoo, Mutou, not to mention ones with macrons and circumflexes) (Yugi, Yuhgi, Yuugi, and ones with macrons and circumflexes) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK,your point is valid.But creator has written the spelling of the subject,s name correctly,and proof is that that subject itself has written serveral articles in different newspapers with "Ehsan Mehmood Khan".Therefore,there, I think, should not be doubt about it,though I have searched with Urdu name too,find nothing,in Urdu there are not different spellings relating that name.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand this article about a reasonably notable defence and security analyst. Kindly look at contesting note of SubContinentalAnalyst given here. I also went through the edit history of Ehsan Mehmood Khan as well as one other article Ehsan Sehgal which interestingly is an autobiography of Ehsan Sehgal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has now changed his user identity as Justice007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under courtesy guidance of Nolelover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also operates under NLinpublic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) identity. It establishes the fact that Ehsan Mehmood Khan belongs to the same district /county of Pakistan wherefrom the parents /ancestors of Ehsan Sehgal also do. User:Ehsan Sehgal created his autobiographic stub with courtesy /editorial assistance of Nolelover. It is unfortunate to mention that Ehsan Sehgal used the names of two of his daughters for making requests to avoid deletion of his autobiographic stub Ehsan Sehgal as per discussion /talk page of his article. Ehsan Sehgal shows that since acceptance (still debatable though) of his own autobiographic stub, he had been inviting troubles to the biographic stubs on people belonging to the said region in Pakistan. He has continuously been reverting and deleting the reasonably reliable references and external links provided by several editors and IPs in Ehsan Mehmood Khan and Nolelover had been unfortunately endorsing every thing he did for the reasons best known to the latter. There is no issue of WP:Notability or WP:Reliable sources at present with Ehsan Mehmood Khan. If an article with almost no single verifiable (online) source can be kept in the name of Ehsan Sehgal just because he made about seven requests to wiki-editors in the names of his daughters, then why not an article on a renowned defence and security analyst like Khan can be kept and expanded? Editors invited by Ehsan Sehgal have checked each and every source on Ehsan Mehmood Khan and have acknowledged that Khan has been cited and referred to by other reputable academics, scholars, organisations and policy makers in their articles and books published in USA, India and Pakistan. What else is notability then? Of course he is not as notable as William Shakespeare at this stage yet he appears quite more notable to me than Ehsan Sehgal, the brain child of Ehsan Sehgal now Justice007. I, therefore, ask the Wikipedia community to take notice of this dual standard and Keep and Expand this valuable article.--JC Bills (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel positively evil reading this, in spite of the mass of blue links impeding my eyes' progress. I am going to remove duplicate links so others don't have this problem. It looked like this prior to my removing the links. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed many more duplicate links from the posting. --Lambiam 12:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...where do I start? The allegations of sockpuppetry and COI? The WP:IDHT attitude regarding writing versus being written about? The comparison to Shakespeare? Ahh well...

JC Bills, first I want to thank you for the work you've put into the article. Whatever else may happen, you are quite dedicated to your topic. Now, you point to SubContinentalAnalyst's comment at the BLPN. I won't spend much time on it, since all he does is say that Justice has been editing in bad faith ("egoistic edit feud") and repeat the same stuff that you have been saying for a while: that he is notable "beyond any shadow of doubt" and anyone reverting you is in the wrong. Next, you say that both Justice and I have or had two accounts, while forgetting to note that Justice changed his name because of harassment just like this concerning his possible COI. (My second account, NLinpublic, is pretty self-explanatory.) You add that Justice, after getting his own article created, has made life difficult for other Pakistani BLP's because he has a COI. Here's another way of looking at it: Justice has been editing those articles because that's what he's knowledgeable in. There aren't many editors on Wikipedia who focus on Pakistani poets and writers, and its not a stretch to say that Ehsan is an "expert" in that area. There has never been evidence of malice on his part, and his rationales and understanding of policy have been surprisingly accurate for an editor of his type. Lastly, you make comparison to the article Ehsan Sehgal, saying that there is a lack of verifiable sourcing there and so on. Here's something you should know then. All of those newspaper articles are online, and completely verifiable. At this moment, I have images of all of them on my computer, and if you wish I can point you to the website where you can get them yourself. There's no double standard. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nolelover, I really feel sorry if the above description of facts has hurt your feelings yet if you (impartially, justly and cool-mindedly) visit the above blue-coloured userlinks of accounts of Ehsan Sehgal and yourself, it (unfortunately) exposes the kind of Nolelover’s love for Ehsan Sehgal. Both of you had, indeed, been reverting the edits made in Ehsan Mehmood Khan for inclusion of references and external links. Interestingly, Ehsan Sehgal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been declaring various references and external links in Ehsan Mehmood Khan as self-promotional and reverting edits immediately within seconds after they were made by IPs and editors. Quite unfortunate that you still hold him to be a good faith editor - may be for his cherishing remarks about you as placed here and at a number of places in your talk page. Dual standard on the part of both of you is thus possibly irrefutable. I again request to drop such attitude and let this article on Khan kept and expanded. Thank you.--JC Bills (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I...I am speechless... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand I endorse the detailed contesting note of JC Bills. Of course, there shall be no room for dual standards on Wikipedia.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see JC Bills's comments in reply to Nolelover's stance.--JC Bills (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editors !voting "Keep" need to review the guidelines on notability. Notability is demonstrated, it is not asserted. In other words - pages are kept because people can find reliable, independent sources that discuss the article's topic. Pages are not kept because the editors who are !voting delete are mean, biased or have edit warred - see WP:ADHOM. Pages are kept because somebody managed to find reliable source that discussed the page's subject at length. Stop talking about the motivation of specific wikipedia editors. Focus your efforts on finding sources that have lengthy discussions of Khan specifically, or you are wasting your, and everybody else's time as the closing admin will discount your !votes. Deletion is not a democracy where number of votes matters - the quality of arguments are more important. To date there has been no actual reasons provided why the current sources in the page are adequate to establish notability; per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, they are not. Please review WP:GOODARG and the notability guidelines for academics to see what is required to avoid deletion. Please also review the expected etiquette during a deletion discussion and formatting required. Making a !vote BIG doesn't make it more valid, it just makes it more difficult to administrate the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether there are adequate sources indicating Ehsan Mehmood Khan is notable enough to avoid deletion. Please take tangential discussions elsewhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sock/meat puppetry accusations - JCBills, the accusations of sockpuppetry by Justice007 (and daughters) need to either be backed up by filing a case at WP:SPI or retracted. As for accusing Nolelover/NLinpublic of socking, well as those are acknowledged alternate accounts, that's just ridiculous and should be struck. LadyofShalott 23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady, . . . the accusations of . . . by Justice007 (and daughters) need to either . . . or retracted probably does not justify here in the light of previous versions of his article's talk page some portion of which has probably been archived? (may be a wrong term here) by Nolelover or some other editor which can still be viewed on Talk:Ehsan_Sehgal. It establishes that he created this autobiographic stub Ehsan Sehgal by using names of two of his daughters for making requests to Wikipedians to avoid deletion of that article and that's what he has actually admitted on your talk page found here and now having been caught almost red-handed, he has himself proposed Ehsan Sehgal as AFD again under Nolelover’s courtesy by deposing himself to be a victim like Hussein ibn Ali. As regards, Nolelover or NLinpublic's running two accounts, that's really not the actual area of my concern but his dual standard. Calling it ridiculous by you also does not value being irrelevant. I have nothing to do as to why, how many, legitimate or illegitimate accounts he has been running. That's what the Wikipedia admins (like you) have to see. He, however, may be out of wiki-love, endorsed almost every 007-type edit Ehsan Sehgal did with Ehsan Mehmood Khan.--JC Bills (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability requires that there be coverage about the subject. I just don't see the significant coverage about Khan that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - Some interesting discussion has gone in. Clearly, if the article is not as notable, it is not as non-notable too. Thus, deleting it would be received controversially. In such a case, it is better to give the benefit of doubt to the creator of the article. Besides, none can say that the sources on the article don't exist. At best, it can be said that the sources are "weak." Weak too for the advocates of deletion. The contenders believe the sources to be strong enough to verify notability. I think, when the person has been cited in one of the books published in the US and a number of other publications as shown in the references, it makes a good case for notability. In my view, it should be kept and expanded. After all, we are looking for notability and not nobility.--Intelligible (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)— Intelligible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – I was unable to find multiple third-party sources covering this subject with much substance or depth (WP:BASIC). I was also unable to find many non-trivial third-party citations amenable to meeting WP:AUTHOR, or third-party documentation of accomplishments to pass WP:PROFESSOR. I tried searching in Urdu, but made no progress (my skills aren't stellar, but I tried to look carefully). This subject clearly exists, but doesn't meet WP:N at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with JFHJr. The individual doesn't meet notability requirements to qualify as encyclopedic. Stubbleboy 18:18, 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. Tone 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Slowe

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully professional league. Ytfc23 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - this footballer came into the English Professional Leagues via Ghana and then Cyprus which has attracted media attention (I have added a couple of citations and could add more if required), plus he has been on the bench in many League games at Northampton and in FA cup matches at Yeovil and so is on the cusp of his first professional league appearance, plus he has represented both Northampton Town and Yeovil Town in many reserve matches and, in the case of Yeovil, in the Somreset Cup as well. Furthermore, the Academy he founded is sending young African players to Europe as well as making an important contribution to a poor community in Accra and running a semi-professional Ghanaian league team - see www.ghana-football-academy.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogpmsp (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Doha#Education. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Canadian School

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

School through grade 9. Convention with such schools is (I understand) to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Zero refs here, and thus zero RS-supported text to consider merging. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Tagged for lack of refs and notability since June. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 7 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. Sandstein 06:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

This article is pure WP:OR and is being used as a WP:COATRACK. The article says "Indians in Afghanistan currently consist of those working in various construction projects, as part of India's rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan" but is actually about Indian intelligence apparently arming Baloch rebels and attacking Pakistan. Which also makes it a WP:FORK of the Balochistan conflict Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A very sound article which definately has a place on wikipedia taking note of possible terrorist activities by some organizations does not mean it is pov darkness shines must stop being offended with information he may not agree with 109.150.57.127 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it is a WP:FORK of the Balochistan conflict? It is not about construction workers at all? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and expand: This article is between stub and start class and is well sourced. The notability criteria is prominent on its own and as well as on all the sections cited. The nominator first tried to remove the information and has now nominated the article for deletion to by pass edit warring. The article is by no way a coat track since it contains only a small section (of few lines) about the Indian intelligence activities in Afghanistan which would still be there if the article was a lengthy one or even a GA class. That is called giving due weight to everything. Instead of deleting the article and it should be expanded on the areas it majorly covers. It would be a coat track article if it was based on the intelligence activities which it is not. This is like asking for a deletion of an article in its initial stages because it got a bit of critique while in that stage (that too not in much length). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article about construction workers or is it about Baloch rebels? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about both in general. It is about all Indians in Afghanistan and their life there. These are two notable aspects which are in the scope of the article. Further, your opening statement says that the article says it is about construction workers which is wrong since the article is not just about construction workers and the article also mentions in proper weight about the intelligence activities. Feel free to add the cultural parts if you like. I support the expansion. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not about construction workers the nwhy does the article start off with them? If it is only about Indians then why exactly are Baloch rebels being mentioned? Are Baloch's now Indian nationals? I am quite certain Balochistan is in Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is crediting all notable reasons for Indians being in Afghanistan. These are just two. If you have others with references, you can add them. But then again, we don't say why is the article saying that Indians are doing these three.. because that's what their notability is there. You can surely object to this by providing references to other kinds of notability which would only support expansion. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? You did not address my questions. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did see for your self. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:TopGun appears to be canvassing. [13] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informing the creator is not canvassing, infact it was actually your job which I completed. And I told him to inform all other major contributors since the current history only shows all other minor contributions and the article was once deleted on copy vio. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He had already been informed Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that... and there's no harm done in anycase if he already knows since it is not canvassing then. Or is it canvassing when only I inform the creator? Pretty self contradicting. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afghanistan had a large Indian community (many Afghan Hindus and Sikhs were of North Indian / Punjabi descent), and although many of them have migrated to Pakistan or India now, this diaspora article serves to discuss that subject of interest. This source I used is in particular quite informative about the community and shows that it numbered around 45,000 which itself is a sizable population. The part about construction workers, as well as the presence of Indian intelligence activists suspected of spying and terrorist-related activities is recent history and would preferably be better accomodated in independent short sub-sections. I suggest using the format utilised in the article Afghans in Pakistan which has a separate section for "terrorism" right at the end, discussing alleged militant activities. A similar concept could be followed here, such as by having an "Alleged intelligence presence" section whose content should of course comply with WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and most importantly WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the article is well sourced and staying on its scope and this debate about intelligence and construction is better to be started on the talk page of the article and is no reason for it's deletion. That content is already in very short prose and complies with weight as compared to the article size. The article needs to be expanded on all other expects and this (which is a notable part of it) will seem better suited with it then if that is the problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete clearly a WP:COATRACK. The only aim of writing this article was to spread Pakistani wp:POV on the Balochistan conflict, the article also fails to provide neutral source to back up the claims on spying activites etc and ends up giving the sources with Pakistani POV. I also agree with the comments by Darkness Shines --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 07:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because it is a WP:COATRACK and per reasons given by Darkness Shines and Ðℬig. JCAla (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Afghanistans Indian community is very involved in reconstruction and India itself is very Involved in Afghanistan so it makes sense to mention them via a separate article and these are just allegations about insurgency allot of countrys blame each other for cross border activities of a sinister nature this does not amount to pov I am sure India blames Pakistan for allot of mishaps within India there is no need to be offended by it there is a good mix and match of Indian and Pakistani sources so I dont see why the whole article should be deleted such emotional actions themselves account POV chill out guys Suppositries (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)This editor has few other contributions outside of this area, and this is his third edit to wiki, ever. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above user is a tad bit paranoid who believes you need a phd or something in that order to edit wikipedia ignore I suggest Suppositries (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if propaganda by Pakistani editors is removed from the article as there is scope for an article if it is not hijacked. --68.71.39.10 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the edits on the page by Pakistani editors seem to be in bad faith and a poor attempt to publish propaganda on Wikipedia. Why waste your time on this? Isn't there anything better for you to do with your time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.39.10 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith when interacting with editors or perceiving their actions. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This version of the article [14] is mostly neutral and contains only two sentences about such supposed activities; that sentence can be further fixed (or even removed zomg). Per WP:UGLY, this should not be deleted because it is a notable subject. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article in its current state is well-sourced, and the topic itself appears notable. WP:COATRACK and neutral point-of-view concerns expressed in this AfD discussion can be addressed on the article's talk page and through editing, rather than entirely removing the article from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep since the article has been rewritten and now contains relevant content. I agree with Northamerica1000, the current version of the article is well-sourced and the topics now addressed are notable. JCAla (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However needs development on the History aspect. Historical ties with India extend for hundreds of years. AshLin (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Ample coverage has been found. Anything that doesn't belong can be discussed on the article's talk page, and removed or altered to be more suitable for Wikipedia. Click on the Google news archive link at the top, and the first results are about the president of Afghanistan commenting on how his government will take all possible measures for the security of Indians in Afghanistan, plus they be targeted and killed there. The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan. Dream Focus 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BlackBerry Curve. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BlackBerry Curve 9380

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

Article shows no reason for notability, or why it deserves its own article, I believe it should be merged into BlackBerry Curve. Gsingh (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- As per nomination, no other curves have their own article, why start here. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 17:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Technology Muddenahalli

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

Delete. This institute does not exist, and per WP:CRYSTAL so shouldn't the article. The cited undated articles are in fact from 2009: here and here are articles with dates, discussing the statement by Veerappa Moily, and verifying the date in which it occurred. Since then, the institute is still merely a proposal. here is a year old report that says again that "Mr. Moily had recently stated that there is a proposal to establish an IIT at Muddenahalli" (my emphasis). I can find no evidence that this was approved, nor that 200 acres were set for it - the news reports discuss 200 acres set for VIAT. Muhandes (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - institution doesnt exist so neither should the article. Fmph (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nacchatar Singh Jhajj

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Tagged for notability since September, for lack of refs since 2007, and as an orphan for nearly 3 years. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing verifiability. I am unable to find any sources that can confirm any of the information in the article. I'm not saying this is a hoax, but simply no sources exist from which to build an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khaing Moe Lunn

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

Bio with zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Appears non-notable and OR. Created by an SPA. Tagged for lack of refs for well over 4 years. Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced Biography of a living person. No reliable sources found. No claims to notability supported. Promotional opinion piece. Essay or original research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, he isn't a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can verify from primary sources (Arakan Liberation Party web site) that he was assistant General Secretary at the founding of the organisation, and got arrested, released, and tried to get things going again. However, none of this activity appears to have been noted in reliable sources. A check of google scholar doesn't turn up any academic work on him, nor is he covered in any books. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Book Addict Diet

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

WP:ESSAY ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pure OR, plain and simple. I won't be surprised if this is speedied within the next hour, to be honest. It's sweet that someone wants to help others lose weight, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for this sort of thing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - As TG says, this is OR in its purest, rawest form. Note the multiple parentheticals and use of the rare first-person noun? I share her sentiments that it sounds like a interesting diet (I'm a bookworm myself), but it doesn't belong in the Wiki. To the author: I look forward to reading this diet in a NYT bestseller within a few years. Hey, it sounds better then others I've seen up there... NLinpublic (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This isn't even an encyclopedia article at all. Circumspect (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Not encyclopedic (completely OR, and not well written at that), no references in article, no sources available on google books, google news, even just typing in 'The Book Addict Diet' in Google gives you nothing. --Stvfetterly (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A hoax made-up by the author, bogus how-to, original research. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just because something is "made up in a day", or badly fails WP:NOTESSAY doesn't make it a "hoax"...put it this way; its not claiming to be something it isn't. NLinpublic (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, blatant hoax, author created other hoax articles as well. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Aur Mrs Khambata

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

Non-notable television program. No indications that it actually exists, based on Google searches. Based on the awards it has won, some internet evidence should exist. Possible hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I previously PRODed this for the same reasons (it was declined without reason). I cannot find any references to the program or the supposed awards it has won to indicate existence, never mind notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sotère Micberth

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

This artist is largely unknown in her own country - or anywhere else, as far as I know. Her father is fairly notable, but she is definitely not. Take not that her (possibly self-promoting) article at the french wikipedia has been deleted four years ago for failing to meet the notability criteria. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See above. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything substantial (except perhaps this), so insufficient evidence of meeting the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she does exist and works as an artist in France (probably makes a living out of it, too) as do thousands of other people, but that's it. As for the website you found, it actually offers free "virtual exhibition" services to just about anyone. All you have to do is send them 10 jpgs photos of your work and specify when you have done IRL exhibits and voilà, you're on their online catalogue ! (well, for honesty's sake, I suppose that they check that your art has some artistic worth) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Fight Pit: Genesis

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts event. Only a handful of notable fighters. Promoted by a non-notable promotion. Having aired as a PPV does not make the event inherently significant in any way. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication that this event (the first one for a new MMA organization) passes WP:SPORTSEVENT or any other notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I hate the contents of the article and the fact it is simply a list of match results, the event appears to pass WP:GNG. There are enough potential sources from 'find sources' links above to make the article a well written article. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that don't fall under WP:ROUTINE--which is what this article is. Astudent0 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got a lot of ghits, but I didn't find any sources with coverage that wasn't WP:ROUTINE. I'll admit I didn't check everything listed, but it seems like this event fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to show this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT or that any of the coverage is anything but routine sports reporting. Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 9 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. Sandstein 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point-of-entry marketing

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

This article is completely unsourced and I can't find any reliable sources. Also has been tagged as not notable. Kgeee65 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Point-of-entry marketing refers to marketing efforts and/or activities that are designed to "meet" customers and prospects at a company’s three main "entry points": the telephone, a website, and a physical ___location such as a store or office. You've got to wonder whether a being that thinks this definition is adequate, or even meaningful, is actually sentient. Claimed to be the recent coinage of a consulting firm. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Aur Gham/

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

I believe this article may well be a complete hoax. Searches for this title generate no relevant results. Certainly a program that has been on the air for 17 years and received so many awards should have generated SOME internet footprint. At least one claimed award (2010 Indian Television Academy Award for Best Male Actor in a Negative Role) can be verified to be false. (Article claims it went to Ejaz Kapoor but the awards' own website credits Meghna Malik with that award.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per evidence (or rather lack thereof) given above; just blocked article creator for repeated removal of AfD notice, which doesn't augur well for attempts to establish notability asserted in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-g3. Blatant hoax. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 (unambiguous advertising) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)

Uros Planinc Group

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

Non-notable band. Claims of notability cannot be verified. Google search on name "Uros Planinc" returns only sites controlled by the band itself (myspace, facebook, youtube, etc). No independent sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources I can find are Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and the like. No reliable sources seem to exist to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:V. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meltemi (operating system)

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

This article is pure speculation about a rumoured operating system. You will have to look through the edit history to see what content used to be there as it was blanked. See WP:CRYSTAL for more info. Millermk90 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete ~~Keep~~ - no difficulty finding reliable sources - I have added a paragraph citing The Guardian's Technology Blog which is an allowable source (written by a journalist under a national newspaper's authority). I've also unblanked the former text, having checked it for copyvio: it seems OK on that score, though no doubt it needs further work. I agree with Millermk90 that the OS is not yet released: ~~what we are documenting, encyclopedically, is the reporting in the~~WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE reliable independent secondary sources of that system THIS IS STILL WP:CRYSTAL. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just wanted to point out that these sources are not necessarily reliable, since Nokia has made no comments on the OS at all, and the root of all these news stories is a Wall Street Journal article citing "anonymous sources." Additionally, the article makes claims that are simply untrue, such as the claim that it "was announced in 2011", when it was never announced at all, and the given reference actually says that Nokia refuses to comment at all. Millermk90 (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is absolutely no ground for removal. WP:CRYSTAL applies only to discussion of the future events, while the article is about the ongoing effort. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CRYSTAL does not only apply to future events. It says, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Despite sources, this article really is speculation and rumour because Nokia has not formally made any comment about the product, despite nearly 2 months passing since the first rumours. Additionally, "more encyclopedic knowledge" is not yet available. Millermk90 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, you're right, that has to be the policy. On reflection I'm changing my !vote to delete (above). WP:CRYSTAL does apply here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems You're reading from the policy exactly the opposite to what it states. The information about Meltemi comes with no release announcement, but it is verifiable, thus passing the WP:CRYSTAL test. Just to be more precise: the WP:CRYSTAL prohibits articles on topics that are reported as rumors; the Maltemi is reported as an actual product with The Register confirming its existence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 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?} 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's based on sources, and I don't think "collection of product announcements and rumors" means that we must always delete - of course we don't want to list every single announcement, but this is regarding the number one smartphone and mobile device company. We seem to have articles before official announcement on everything regarding Apple, after all (see [15] still active). If people disagree, then might I also suggested merging with Series 40? The information itself is still useful, and shouldn't be deleted, even if the topic is deemed not to deserve its own article yet. Mdwh (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not about Series 40. So far analysts suggest that Meltemi would replace Symbian/S60 as the entry-level OS, i.e. the EPOC32 core will be replaced by the Linux core and the S60 UI from latest Symbian releases will be merged with MeeGo 'smartphone' UI. That's potentially dozens of end-user devices and dozen million sales - I don't see how it is unnotable when we have huge articles on Maemo and MeeGo which had very few end-user phones released and sold only several dozen thousands. Let it hang for now - if Meltemi doesn't really get any traction within a year or two, then delete it, right now it's quite promising to delete it right away. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 10:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Yarar

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

Article about footballer who according to svenskfotboll.se (SvFF's official website) has never played in a fully-pro league and which fails the general notability guideline. Earlier proposed deletion was contested with no explanation. Jogurney (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has made no professional appearances [16] do does not pass WP:FOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without significant coverage this article fails WP:GNG, and since Mr Yarar has not played at a fully pro level, it fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Frye

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

BLP sourced only to IMDB. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failes WP:ENT. Animusv3 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found verifiability of his works in enough sources to convince me he meets WP:ENT and enough coverage in books and news to convince me he meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WHen sources exist, being sourced only to IMDb is a reason to fix it if possible than it is to delete because it was not fixed by others. I'll be back after expanding and sourcing the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A short career (not surprising for a child actor at that time), but he had significant roles in multiple notable films and television productions. Passes WP:NACTOR.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:30, 29 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?} 13:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: Article is a BLP. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poor sourcing, per nomination, but seemingly enough acting credits to merit encyclopedic biography. Definitely not a slam dunk either way, but this looks like a Keep-and-Improve situation from a quick glance at the Google machine... Carrite (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pagnia Xiong

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

Not notable. Unknown label (their front page is selling his latest album...). All links are promotional. No actual references in article. Can't find any that pass wp:rs when searching. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:52, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lee style tai chi chuan. (The proposed redirect target is a redirect there.) (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Family Arts

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

No notability justified, and the article is more a list of dot points. If the name is worth keeping then maybe convert it to a redirect to Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What is the topic of this article? I'm completely flummoxed. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan Article is poorly written, but I found mentions of the Li Family Arts so I think a redirect is best. Astudent0 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan This article lacks independent sources, but the significant (and sourced) material can be found in the Li Tai Chi article. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 8 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. CSD A10 would normally apply, except that there is a valid target to redirect to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo! Music Of The Vampire

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

per WP:CBALL, film/series not released. mabdul 10:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yikes. While this is actually a real movie, it's far from being what this article makes it out to be. This is the title of a Scooby Doo movie that's releasing in March. The plot in this article is WAY off from what the movie is going to be about. As far as I can tell, this isn't a reboot of anything and is meant to fall in with the existing canon. This is just pure speculation. As far as keeping it goes, it isn't due out until March and there just aren't enough reliable sources to support an article at this time, especially since it's direct to video. At most this would be a redirect to Scooby-Doo#Scooby-Doo_filmography. When the movie gets released we can see if there's enough buzz to warrant an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. There's actually another article on Wikipedia for the actual movie here: Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire. It's being PRODed due to WP:CRYSTAL. This article that's up for deletion right now should be speedied for being a complete hoax, so I'm tagging it now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since there is a movie of this title, its not really a hoax, just deeply misguided. However, CSD:A10 (article that duplicates an existing article) does apply. Tagged as such. Sparthorse (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NorthgateArinso Reward Solutions

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

Paucity of substantial rs coverage suggests lack of notability. Tagged for zero refs for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged. Also fails WP:CORP if speedy declined. ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a copyright violation. Article was cut-and-pasted from Beerware with only a few of the words changed. Also WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CandyWare

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

Neologism - no proof given that this term has actually been used with this meaning. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Rmartin271 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)If all the users had the right to delete articles than Wikipedia would be empty. It might not seem important to you, but can be important to others. In this case Martin Bestawros is trying to prove that he has his own license. When people buy his products from iTUNES or from the web how are they to believe that this license is real. They will search it in google and guess what the first result will be: it will be the wikipedia candware post. Hope you are now more educated about the topic and will reconsider and not just go around deleting pages on wikipedia.[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Wikipedia describes what is notable; it doesn't prescribe it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTADVERTISING --Northernhenge (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Concepts must catch on before Wikipedia mentions them, not the other way around. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:NEO that quickly becomes a WP:PROMO for a specific individual (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dj markomix

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

Autobiography of a Wikipedian contributor. Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 07:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhola Pagal

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

Movie lacks refs, gnews hits, and gbooks hits. Appears to lack substantial independent rs coverage. Tagged for notability and lack of refs since September. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a starting point, IMDB has nothing on this film... but as they are quite incompplete for Cinema of India, I looked elsewhere... to no avail. Even when combining the title with production company or lyracist... nothing. All I could find were non-RS that simply mimicked the information verbatim from the Wikipedia article. We have no verifiability the the film even exists. If not a hoax, it sure feels like one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It might not be a hoax, but it certainly doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Can't America Have Human Rights?

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

This event lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since June. Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to lack of refs and no evidence of notability. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Breakthrough (human rights), no references available other than youtube and social media references and no evidence of notability, plus it's duplicated in the Breakthrough article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs some RS third-party reviews and assessment of its impact. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a one-time event would probably need at least some evidence of long-term impact, and I can't even find much RS for original event itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was created by an SPA, who also created a few other articles that should probably be considered for merger (to Breakthrough) or deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no established ongoing or historical significance to this event. It was a forum held several years ago, and the article claims 600 people attended. There are lots of forums on issues attended by 600 or more people, and nothing in the article establishes why this one was notable in ways other, more ordinary ones are not. Circumspect (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Collier

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

These players all fail WP:RLN as they have not played in a first grade or international match. In addition many have copyvio concerns as they look like they have been copy/paste from the official website. Mattlore (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages due to the above concerns:[reply]

Delete All fail WP:RLN and the text has been pinched directly from the Warriors homepage.Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. All fail WP:RLN, which is already quite a wide notability guideline. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plantation Open

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

Should be deleted per tennis project ladies tournament guidelines. From 2008–2012 the ITF Women's $35,000–$100,000+ tournaments are the only ones considered notable. These do not meet notability in tennis project guidelines of a $35,000 tournament. Other pages of this low-level type tournament have already been deleted. see - other articles deleted Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

other related pages:

Delete per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These were contested ProDs. Thanks to Fyunck for bundling them. These tournaments fail the guidelines used by project Tennis, where a recent discussion confirmed a concensus not to have under $35k tennis tournament articles, see: Woman ITF 25k tournaments. There are also no in depth coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to establish GNG for these tournaments. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tend to agree with the noms rationale. Pol430 talk to me 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several more $25k tournaments in AfD have meanwhile resulted in nearly anonymous deletes, confirming a broad concensus not to have them : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 AEGON GB Pro-Series Foxhills, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Zubr Cup, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Trofeul Popeci, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Enka Cup, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis MakeSense64 (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per general concensus, doesn't indicate it meets WP:N or WP:NSPORT 98.64.181.170 (talk) 22:49, 9 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 Capistrano Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niguel Hills Middle School

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

This school only teaches grades 6-8 and thus does not enjoy the assumption of notability accorded high schools in AFDs in recent years. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline, despite some run of the mill coverage in the LA Times, in its role as the local newspaper. Edison (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capistrano Unified School District (the list of schools there should also be delinked). You can redirect all non-notable public schools in the U.S. to their parent school district articles; don't bother bringing them to AFD. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have had some similar AfDs recently where editors have variously !voted Keep, Delete, Merge, and Redirect, so I think it is understandable that nom brought it here. In fact -- we've even had the situation of a sysop questioning another sysop's close in similar AfDs, so this may be less clear an outcome than it might otherwise appear to be.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per usual. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and redirect. All the text in unreferenced and should be deleted rather than merged; a redirect of the name would be fine.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into school district.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:01, 7 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. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Hughes (footballer)

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

Has never played in a fully pro league and never played while at Celtic. Has only played in the Conference & therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Without a fully pro appearance or significant coverage, he clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played first team professional league football for Fleetwood Town (Fleetwood Town being a full-time professional football club)^[1] and therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. User:Veganfishcake (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my nomination I acknowledge Hughes had played in the Conference. However Fleetwood are not in a fully professional league Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. if the league isn't classed as fully pro then i don't believe it matters whether the club is. I may be mistaken though. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.fleetwoodtownfc.com/2011/08/23/barrow-4-0-fleetwood/

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Wars (app)

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any significant third-party sources indicating notability. Contested prod with reasons of unlikely notability as well Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the prodder. Unlikely to meet the GNG. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Coverage in Softonic, Mac Observer, Slide to Play (which looks reliable enough after looking at their editorial staff/review policy here), and G4 seem to indicate that this passes for notability. --MuZemike 01:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep the Mac Observer review looks great. The others, less so. Assuming those are all RSes (and they look it) this is above the bar though. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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?} 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Address Verification

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

unreferenced original research. Reads like an essay on the subject. Possibly notable subject but not in this form. Can be adequately covered in existing Address Verification System‎ article. RadioFan (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RadioFan, the Address Verification System article is far better written and covers the same materialZzaffuto118 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now thoroughly revised the article so that it is significantly different from the Address Verification System article, more informational, and has much better documentation. Jwnacnud (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What else needs to be done (by me) to be able to remove the deletion notice on this article? It it now well cited, clear, concise, and informational. Jwnacnud (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is nothing else you can do right now. This discussion must run it's course. An administrator will consider the discussion and determine if consensus has been gained to keep or delete the article.--RadioFan (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as it is confusing in its current form. One, the first sentance of the article should explain the subject, e.g. 'Postal Addess Verification' is.. then describe how it differs from 'Address Verification System'. Two, Wikipedia cannot be used as source material as per WP:CIRCULAR. To learn how to cross reference to other Wikipedia articles see Help:Wikilinks. Mariepr (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current article is confusing. It's not clear why a dedicated article is needed.--RadioFan (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Credit card AVS is used only to authenticate credit card ownership, where Postal Address Verification is used to determine deliverability to a specific address. I just clarified this in the article. Jwnacnud (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The internal (wikipedia) references have now been changed to inline links according to Help:Wikilinks and they no longer are shown as references for the article. Thanks for the heads up. Jwnacnud (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author may want to consider working with somebody who has no knowledge of these address verification systems. In its present form it is very confusing and seems to be written for somebody having advanced technical knowledge of bulk mailing lists. Articles must be understandable to the average reader. Mariepr (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article content is not covered elsewhere, however is still in need of significant attention.

Comment Author might consider reworking the article to adopt a more international perspective, such as that used in Postal Code and Address (geography) articles. Postal Address Verification is in use in many other countries beyond the US, at the very least those with local subsidiaries of organisations such as Experian-QAS.M1rtyn (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable — see here, for example. The rest is ordinary cleanup per our editing policy which is not the purpose of AFD. Warden (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#A7, as no explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 11:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wacko Bob

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

Possible Autobiography of a Wikipedian user. Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 03:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boeing 737 rudder issues. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MetroJet Flight 2710

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

Non notable incident. Isn't a hull loss. Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria. Might be worth noting i 737 article only because of that aircraft's history of rudder deflections. William 21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -William 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Boeing 737 rudder issues - non-notable outside the context of that article, fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect is fine with me. The rudder issues article already makes mention of this incident.- William 00:02, 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) 03:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Bushranger looks like a reasonable resolution. For a non-crash incident, a stand alone article is justified only in exceptional cases, and I cannot see that is the case here. However, the incident is clearly of relevance in a wider issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Agree with Bushranger's assessment of referenced WP guidelines and proposed solution. M1rtyn (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jam 9

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

I found zero sources. The band won a rookie award and only released one song according to the article. That was back in 2003. The official website is a dead link. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A basic Google returned the correct URL for the site, which I have now fixed on the page, so the "dead link" comment should no longer be valid. Still, I couldn't find any reliable sources either, but that might just be because I'm not hitting the right terms. Really could do with somebody from Japan having a look and lending local expertise. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I checked the Oricon website in Japan (Oricon produces the primary music chart used in Japan) and found that Jam-9 has produced four singles that have charted, the highest reaching no. 122 (see here). The Oricon chart expanded to 200 in 2002. They've only produced one album with a major label, and that reached no. 77 on the album chart (see here). If we follow WP:BAND, this would seem to satisfy criteria 2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"--even though the charting was not that high. I looked for something on their rookie award, but that seems to be a mistake. Their own official site profile states that a song from their indie album "Rookie Players" was selected as the support song for the Shimizu S-Pulse football team (Jam-9 comes from that area of Japan). That doesn't appear to be exactly right. The S-Pulse website does not list it as the official support song, but mentions that it was a tie-up song for one of their official events (see here). Michitaro (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like it might pass WP:BAND because of the music chart. If that is found to be the case, I will withdraw this. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you need another source to confirm the charts? I provided links to Oricon's own database. Being new to band-related AfDs, I just want to make sure. Since they charted pretty low, it might be hard to find other sources. Michitaro (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think so. I've seen AfDs just pass because of a verified chart rating. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it appears to pass WP:BAND, I will withdraw. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michitaro (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 06:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single Remix Tracks

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

Limited release, lacks notability. Article only consists of track listing and basic release info. —Andrew_stalk 21:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did it ever chart? The album is still for sale from Sony Music Entertainment Japan, hardly a minor label. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It did not. Even in Oricon. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it did not seem to reach a chart position (if a source can be found suggesting otherwise, I'll change my mind). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like a stub to me. Can it be expanded? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot find anything. :( Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched books? You won't find too many web sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There's no source at all to establish notability, except that it was released. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:27, 7 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?} 12:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sacramento entertainers

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

Unsourced for more than four years, convert to a category. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no reason to delete is provided. See WP:CLN, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:IMPERFECT, &c. Warden (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep implies that my deletion nomination is in bad faith. I object to that. I explained why this should be deleted. Need I mention that it's been a BLP violation ever since its inception? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nomination doesn't advance arguments regarding topic notability itself, and instead, is based upon the current state of the article. An article being unsourced is not a valid criterion for deletion, per the criterion for deletion listed here: WP:DEL#REASON. It's likely that this article could easily be sourced with some basic research, as entertainers often receive a fair amount of press and news coverage. I'm making no implication here regarding any type of faith regarding the nominator; the nomination's rationale isn't policy based. Also, this is a useful, discriminate list with a well-defined focus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've improved the layout of the article, and have added some references. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, as long as we are going to have list articles and we maintain any on entertainers then why no sac too.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:02, 7 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) 19:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CTrader

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

doubt notability Lmatt (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Forex trading platform (NB: "forex" = currency speculation) advertising on Wikipedia. Uncited but listed references are to trade related website interviews, profiles, and trade blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; clear consensus that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 09:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Thielen

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Herp Derp (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's undeniably in quite poor shape, but WP:POLITICIAN (#1, sentence 1) makes it clear that being a member of a state legislature establishes notability. Magister Scienta ^talk 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable per WP:POLITICIAN M1rtyn (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as state legislator. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should have been tagged as an unreferenced BLP, rather than nominated for deletion. As a member of the state legislature she passes WP:POLITICIAN by definition. I have wikified the article and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Topic passes point 1 of WP:POLITICIAN, and topic is notable per references added to the article by User:MelanieN. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; clear consensus that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 09:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kymberly Pine

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Herp Derp (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's undeniably in quite poor shape, but WP:POLITICIAN (#1, sentence 1) makes it clear that being a present or past member of a state legislature establishes notability. Magister Scienta ^talk 01:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as state legislator. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable as an elected state legislator. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should have been tagged as an unreferenced BLP, rather than nominated for deletion. As a member of the state legislature she passes WP:POLITICIAN by definition. I have wikified the article and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Per reliable sources added to the article by User:MelanieN. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. (Sorry, nothing new to add.) Location (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard of Flanders

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

The existence of this individual is derived from a non-reliable, fantasmagorical 19th-century genealogical 'just-so' story based on nothing more than that the ancestor of the first Counts of Flanders had the role of Forester, so he must have been ancestor of everyone named Forster and even Foster. No modern account of the Counts of Flanders even wastes time refuting such patent nonsense. Agricolae (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders, http://books.google.com/books?id=LgNDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=%22Sir+Richard+of+Flanders%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z__2Ts-qMMHZiQK92tXGDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Sir%20Richard%20of%20Flanders%22&f=false or one hundered other pages and or links? What old sources before 1950 would you choose? There is a lot of his-stories out there, much of it involves familiy lineage and geneology, like the list of kings in the bible, another book I am sure you don't feel has any credability,or others out there. One can't really verify anything before 1920, as anyone of note is dead, and people like yourself are unverifable as your documentation doesn't exist either. William the "Bastard", of Normandy, King of England, is just one guy who became the leader of many others, who are left nameless, yet those nameless are the ones who did all of the fighting and died. Those who were successful at staying alive and were literate enough to tell about it, wrote it down. Not even the 'great' historians got it all correct. There is plenty of stuff on wiki that has less meaningful interest. Believe it or not may people have used the same text as I did for their references into a history that is in the mainstream. 99% of current information, is third party at best, especially here on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPHutchins (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I see is that http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders (cited above as a possible reference for this article) contradicts this article: "However, histories of Baldwin V don’t show a child named Richard. While it is possible that a Richard Forster was knighted by William the Conqueror at age 16, he was probably not a son of Baldwin V, or a brother to Baldwin’s daughter Matilda who married William. My guess is his royal parentage was the invention of Frederick Clifton Pierce in his 1899 tome Foster genealogy, Part 1." Note that Frederick Clifton Pierce's Foster Genalogy is the only work cited in this article. Thus, the first alternative source provided not only contradicts the article but also calls into question the accuracy of the only source used. If this 11th century person is notable to historians, the article needs to be based on mainstream historical works. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two links provided by DPHutchins, one is to a self-published web site, and thus not a reliable source. The other, as far as I can tell, has absolutely nothing to do with this concocted Sir Richard of Flanders, dealing with events 400 years later. A nihilistic portrayal of history is inconsistent with the need for sources that satisfy WP:RS, and this is not overcome by an WP:Other stuff exists argument. If you are aware of other pages similarly based on such genealogical fantasy, please identify them so they too can be nominated for deletion. As to whether Richard of Flanders existed but was not son of Baldwin, this too is untrue. He has no existence independent of this invented origin myth for the Forster/Foster families. Without the connection we are left with someone named Richard, of which there are too many to distinguish. Simply put, someone made up the whole thing to give the Forsters royal descent. Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that there is a dispute about this person according to http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders is evidence for keeping. Ultimately we're writing about the historical memory of the person, not the person himself, so existence is (usually) irrelevant, moreover if http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders finds the dispute over his existence notable, then a notable dispute is evidence for notability. I guess the question I'm asking is, if Richard of Flanders is a fantasy, is he a notable fantasy? I can't say I'm certain either way, but let's make sure the discussion takes this into consideration Jztinfinity (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an unfortunate period in genealogy when tens of thousands of such invented ancestors were wished into being, and for the past 100 years the only people who give them the time of day are the credulous descendants for whom the connections created are too good not to repeat. It takes more than just a couple of century-old non-scholarly books making the claim and a collection of self-published web sites saying 'is so', 'is not' to establish notability of such an invention. It is such obvious nonsense that serious scholars don't even waste their time refuting it, so there is no serious debate. This is not King Arthur or Beowulf we are talking about here, it is just the whim of one author who had more imagination than self-control, and an invention in no way unique among all of the genealogical fantasies so created - arguably this so-called Richard of Flanders isn't even the most notable invention in this pedigree, and doesn't merit a page, either as reality or legend. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Agricolae. This might be a handy page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). I checked Families, Friends and Allies by Heather J. Tanner, which is listed as a reference in the article on Baldwin V - pages 292-293 consist of a chart of the comital family that only lists three children for the man: Baldwin VI, Robert I, and Matilda. Also, Elisabeth van Houts in her ODNB article on Matilda states that Matilda had two brothers: Baldwin and Robert [17]. If modern scholars don't mention a fourth child, we shouldn't either.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This article states things as facts. I assume that the existence of a Richard Le Forester (or such like) and of his sons can be established. If so, it ought to be possible to say what lands in England they were granted. What is not established is that he was a son of Baldwin V, or that he is the ancester of every one called Foster or Forster. There were a lot of Royal Forests in England, and many of them had foresters, for some of whom this will have become a surname. Either this article should be deleted, but it would be better if it were toned down in the light of this AFD discussion. That Pearce claimed he was a son of Baldwin V is factual; however from what others have discovered this factoid is not based on any reliable source. Accordingly, Pearce (and probably many websites based on him) are not WP:RS. I regret to say that genealogists when dealing with remote periods are inclined to make guesses, which others then quote as fact. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The existence of Richard Le Forester and his 'sons' cannot be established. Were there Richards and Hughs that were foresters, yes, dozens. Do these bear any resemblance to the 'Richard the Forester' of Pearce, no. This is not just a question of scholarly guesses, which are hard enough to deal with in a context such as Wikipedia, but outright BS. Pearce and his ilk have taken any reference to anyone being a forester and merged them together, making composite characters and forging genealogical connections between people with no link except a shared occupation, with a healthy dose of invention as the glue to stick it all together (or even more correctly, they take an invented pedigree and decorate it with supposedly relevant historical documents). It is not just the linkage to the Counts of Flanders that is in question. The whole thing is 19th century historical fiction, dressed up as genealogy, and a non-notable fiction to boot. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Delete -- I can think of several other examples, where the well-meaning "inference" - actually invention - of genealogists has led to highly misleading conclusions. The only merit in retaining this might be to provide a means of recording that the generalogy is spurious. However, I was responsible for disposing of one spurious link, previously existing in WP, and think that on the whole, the spurious is best excluded. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 29 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) 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As dubious genealogy which fails the verifiability requirement for Wikipedia articles due to a lack of reliable sources to establish the claims made. Edison (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortuantely several contributors above failed to vote clearly. However the consensus is clear. The relisting admin, appears to be have been too lazy to read the discussion properly and realise that it clearly fails WP:V, unless this invented genealogy is so notorious that it needs an article to make clear that it is wholly spurious. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and almost certainly fake. Regrettable as Pearce's book [18] is an absolute hoot. Nothing to do with history as we know it. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After new sources were found. Sandstein 07:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Latch Brothers

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

Totally lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:BANDor WP:GNG … beau coup links to IMDb are meaningless. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first article and I stand corrected I had no idea the IMDB links were meaningless, so my apologies and hope to see this article stay. It is a work in progress and this will grow. Thanks, Kurt N. Kurtnardone (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Of the sources given, two of them are identical to each other. ([19], [20]) They're both the same article that was given to different news sites, so I'm not sure that it should or could be used twice as a source. Other than that article, there's nothing listed that would be considered to be reliable sources. The Last Fm link is more of a listing, which is considered to be a trivial source. Given that there are some big names involved in this, it's worth userfying (WP:USERFY) until/if the point comes where more reliable sources are found. (Although be aware that notability is not inherited even though the people involved are notable. WP:NOTINHERITED.)I would recommend a brief mention on the pages of each person involved in the group, though. (Just listing this out since Kurtnardone is new so he can earmark these for future notice.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. There's an article in Vibe that can be used. Agree with Tokyogirl79's suggestion of brief mention on member's pages, at least until a more substantial base of sources can be found. I'm scouring google now but there isn't much in the way of press.Galadrist (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Wp:notability is possible, but this article has certainly not yet established it. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the good MTV source, the Vibe source, which is at least more than a press release, and the competing redirect targets. it's highly unlikely that this project will become any more notable. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Tokyogirl79. Currently fails WP:BAND but the creator appears to b confident that notability will be asserted when more sources have been found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added some sources to the article. I think there's enough there now that this should be kept, or at the very least merged to a section in the Mike D article.--Michig (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Close to "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" under WP:BAND if not already there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per coverage from MTV and Vibe Magazine. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per coverage added and reflected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of typefaces. I've unlinked the wikilink to Year Supply of Fairy Cakes from the target article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Year Supply of Fairy Cakes

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

I found no significant coverage for this font. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of typefaces. I couldn't find anything to show that this particular type of font is especially notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:31, 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) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of typefaces The only possible notability criterion that could be applied to this article, WP:GNG, is failed because none of the web pages mentioning this font even remotely qualify as reliable. Magister Scienta ^talk 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Grace Brownlee

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

unremarkable viral video subject. limited media attention, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. contested 2nd'd prod. RadioFan (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cloudz 679 07:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the three sources in the article, there's more reliable-source coverage available, which qualifies this topic per WP:GNG:

News.com.au article (subject's name appears to be misspelled in parts of the article, with the middle name "Lee")
Billboard article
Newsday article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a good example of why WP:BIO1E was created: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." As cute as this little girl is, this is just yet another YouTube video that received some attention and there is no indication that we'll hear from her again.--RadioFan (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of reliable sources is completely outweighed by WP:BLP1E. Magister Scienta ^talk 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There probably needs to be an RfC at some point about how to handle coverage of viral videos with respect to their encyclopedia-worthiness. I think we've got a pretty low bar for pop culture, and that's not necessarily a bad thing — Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia AND a compendium of pop culture. I expect this will close a keep under current standards calling for multiple instances of significant coverage. I'm not entirely sure that it should. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a 1 event BLP. Doubly so as a little kid.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The issue requires a merge discussion, not AfD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks

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

Second: 2011 Los Angeles arson spree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay, something needs to be done. There are two articles about this topic. This article ("2011-12") is a poorly written version that is mostly the work of one person, with content from the other article pasted in. The other article ("2011") is a little better written and less clunky.

Can we just get on one page here, folks? tedder (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, this is not a matter for AFD. You already have agreement for a merger at Talk:2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks; that can go ahead as soon as this AFD is closed. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Speedy close. Just merge to the ___location that consensus already exists to locate the article.
- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note It's actually been redirected twice (last I checked; the count might be higher now), but the creating editor keeps reverting it back. This AFD may be the solution needed. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has all the information as its twin and more and is worded better and more updated.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sheesh… "worded better and more updated"—really? That ought to speak for itself, but your version comes with lots of speculation and unsourced claims, as well! And even better, you've now turned the other into a redirect to yours. Please consider just trying to work with the community. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of them, per WP:Notability (events). This should be at Wikinews, not here. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This meets notability definately... $2 million dollars damage! Why can Wikipedia have articles about airplanes crashing with one death but not $2 million damage and the worst fires since 1992? BCS (Talk) 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both and merge them. Its too soon to tell if this is just a blip in the news or a legit encyclopedic topic. Close the afd and we can revisit it in a month or two when things become clearer. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the creator of the page currently being redirected. Here's my side: The article in question was written before I wrote the other because I couldn't find it, and thought there was no article about the event. So I wrote an article. I was notified on my talk page today that a page existed already but was told "your version is much better developed". -User:220 of Borg So I redirected the other page into mine with no discussion or letting the other user know (this is what it looked like before I made it a redirect. I then decided I liked the other title better, and left a note on the Admin's noticeboard about moving a page over a redirect (still no response). I then had RL things to do and when I came back I saw that he had basically copy-pasted my article to his title, added empty sections, redirected my page, without discussion. Now I have an ITN on hold, an AfD and an article to worry about.

I realize the mistakes I made and hopefully we can work this out... Maybe make a third title and redirect the other two into it. BCS (Talk) 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lead story on the national news. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.fleetwoodtownfc.com/2011/08/23/barrow-4-0-fleetwood/

[1]