Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 5

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 4 January 6 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abertay University Labour Society

edit
Abertay University Labour Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Small student society in minor university Kodabar (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. There does not seem to be discussion of this society in independent reliable sources. They are less than a year old. The link for their shortlisting for an award for "Best New labour Club" is broken, as least today (8 January 2012). The award is probably not notable either. --Bejnar (talk) 23:07, 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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Sehgal

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ehsan Sehgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article (User:Justice007) requests deletion. See here, his talk page and LadyofShalott's talk. I am respecting his wishes by creating this AfD, but this nomination should not be taken as a !vote either way. In the first diff and his message on Lady's talk, Justice is referring to this AfD and discussion which went on before, in which he was accused of bad-faith editing because of his "COI" related to Pakistani stubs. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see no rationale for deletion. Subject appears notable as per previous discussions. I note the subject's desire for deletion, but I'm unclear what influence (any?) this should have on our decision. Please clarify one thing, if anyone can: what is the connection between Ehsan Sehgal and Ehsan Mehmood Khan. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic meets the notability guidelines per sources. Just as we do not create articles about people or companies because the article subject wishes to have a Wikipedia entry, so should we avoid deleting articles at the whim of the subject. Wikipedia is not censored - notability is what counts, and Ehsan Sehgal is notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Yunshui, no reason to delete. Though we should be respectful of both editors and BLP subjects, that doesn't mean they have control over their pages. Though the page may have been started by a COI account, there has since been sufficient scrutiny by independent editors to produce an adequate page. Though the process to arrive at this version was less than ideal, the current version is adequate in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is well sourced and no COI is visible on the article. It is written in a neutral way as well. --121.52.144.104 (talk) 01:12, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr Winds

edit
Zephyr Winds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only links in the article is a dead link and the homepage. I am also unable to find significant coverage. This music group fails WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 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 speedy keep. No remaining deletion !votes, nomination was procedural. Fences&Windows 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Canoe

edit
Old Town Canoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So as to avoid the article being speedily deleted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one minor reference in a small-city local newspaper does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Contrary to the author's belief, an article at AfD can be subject to speedy deletion, although this one does not meet any of the CSD criteria. However as it is about a non-notable company, this article should be deleted Since the author has now added sufficient sources to show notablity. Sparthorse (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Sparthorse. Keep per sources cited below. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacking depth of coverage and the newspapers relied upon for referencing are not sufficiently 'major' to assert notability. Fails the WP:GNG Pol430 talk to me 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has anybody actually looked for sources? A quick search using Google news uncovered over 600 hits, mostly from New England-based newspapers (not just Bangor, Maine) with a few from other areas. It's also been profiled on national media such as NPR and the Discovery Channel. The company is over 100 years old, and I consistently see it referred to as one of the "iconic companies" of Maine (example here). Clearly, it meets WP:CORP], and I'm surprised that it was nominated for deletion at all. Zeng8r (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current article may lack sufficient references, but this is an established and well-known company that easily passes WP:CORP. In particular, note this from WP:CORP policy: "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." In the case of Old Towne Canoe, consider these published works:
Book about the history of Old Towne Canoe Company, published in 2003
They Still Make Canoes Like They Used To, New York Times 1981 These two alone should be sufficient. --Crunch (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crunch and Zeng8r beat me to it. The one source that's referenced in the article itself discusses the historical nature of the facility. Built in the late 19th century, it appears to have tremendous importance to the reason - primarily in a historical light. This meets the standard discussed above of "independent" verification. Additionally, even if this were not to meet that standard under some light, the fact that so many people in that region find the place important, as confirmed by the many articles discussing it, should be enough reason to include the article. Lord Roem (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Crunch. This company passes WP:CORP because it is old and well-mentioned in both newspaper and books. In additions, the referenced phrase "Old Town is the largest and best known American canoe manufacturer" alone should be more than enough for establishing this article's notability.--AM (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I don't like to get on my soapbox and lecture adults, but I feel this needs to be said. Cases like this point out a serious problem in the deletion discussion process, whether it's an article or an image or whatever. There are a group of users who are very concerned with notability and/or fair use issues. While I don't personally worry about these things so much, I understand that they're making a good faith effort to improve the project. However, sometimes these users are so concerned about furthering the cleaning process that they'll automatically support pretty much any deletion proposal without bothering to do any research or even read the arguments of other users who disagree.

In this case, I have to commend several users for changing their opinion when more sources were discovered, as I've been involved in several deletion discussions in which very reasonable objections were ignored, and the item was (unjustly, imo) killed by a metaphorical angry mob. On the other hand, why was this article nominated for speedy deletion in the first place? And why did the first few contributors rubber-stamp approve the deletion proposal w/o doing any research? And they obviously didn't do any research, because I'd never heard of Old Town Canoes and it literally took me under a minute to discover that the company most definitely meets notability guidelines. Let's be careful out there, people; these articles' lives are in our hands... Zeng8r (talk) 20:43, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange Illusion

edit
The Orange Illusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 "The Orange Illusion" returns only sites controlled by the band itself (myspace, facebook, youtube, etc). No independent sources to be found. Londonclanger (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 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. Notability established (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:NEO) (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather cry in a BMW

edit
I would rather cry in a BMW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may not be notable and could be merged somewhere. The author continues to take down maintenance tags on this article without offering reasons or fixing the problems. This article was tagged PROD but author removed it without reason. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I prodded it, and the deprodder did give reasons on the talk page. But it still falls far short of a notable topic to my eyes. The phrase arose on the show Fei Cheng Wu Rao and the related controversy already has a section there. This just reproduces and expands on that section and is still largely about the show, while all the references are about the show or the contestant. There is no discussion of this phrase or it's impact, no mention of it independent of the show.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The page is a work in progress, and is by no means perfect. But the symbolic value of the phrase has led to mass discussions in Chinese media, both television and online. Columns have been written specifically about the phrase by a large number of Chinese newspapers, delving into much deep analysis about the phrase, such as seen here: [2], here: [3], and here: [4] (a clever rebuttal saying "I would rather laugh on a bicycle"). I concede that judging by English-language media alone this topic may not be notable per se. But once I will have more time to translate Chinese-language analysis into English, which will give the article a more 'notable' feel. So I will offer the option of a 'temporary deletion' if most other users feel the deletion must go ahead, and I will try to re-create the article on a temp page first on my userspace to better establish its notability.

    Given due consideration to both Chinese and English-language media, I would still vouch that the phrase's notability clearly extends beyond the realm of the show alone - it has spurred discussions about a wide range of social issues, and as mentioned in the article, is an emblematic, symbolic representation of much larger issues. Isolating the content to the show itself would not do justice to such symbolism, nor would it be appropriate to flood the show's article on analysis that is tangential. It is analogous to merging Tear down this wall! with Berlin Wall. That is my case for keeping this article where it is. Colipon+(Talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment a poor analogy, as I think you will need to do a little more to establish the notability of an off-the-cuff comment by a game show contestant than a challenge to communism from the then US president! But certainly do what you can to improve it and if you run out of time get it userfied to finish the job. The references above look borderline but that's mostly as apart from Yahoo I can't tell if they are reliable sources (and even Yahoo China carries a lot of poor quality content).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep:This phrase has become a well-known meme in Chinese popular culture over the last two years, and has been regularly examined in the Western media. It meets the minimum requirements for inclusion, as per WP:N, due to the wide availability (in English and Chinese media) of reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage to the history of the phrase, and analyzing the phrase and its implications for modern Chinese society. A good-faith gsearch returns a number of articles on this meme: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, etc).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferox Seneca (talk · contribs)
  • Keep the current page has sufficient reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Francis Bond (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 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 No consensus, and I see none forthcoming right now. I suspect that a more general policy needs to be enacted. The strongest argument in favor of deletion is that it violates WP:FORK; the strongest argument to keep is the fact that she is # 14 in number of # 1 hits. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Katy Perry songs

edit
List of Katy Perry songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneeded WP:CFORK list. This is basically a rehash of a discography and this is not something to be merged into a WP:FL. Further, there are WP:OR issues with all of the "unreleased" tracks. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete No need for this list - she's not the Beatles, she's a young performer with a handful of "hits". A list of all of her recorded songs is not-notable whatsoever at this point. At some point when her catalogue meets that of Michael Jackson, Dire Straits, Garth Brooks ... maybe, this this is merely a list of any and all tracks whether notable or not (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • She's not the Beatles, but she's pretty big. She's had six US main chart #1 hits. That's more than the Beach Boys. More than Brittney Spears. Twice the Black-Eyed Peas, 75% of the Rolling Stones. It's more than ABBA, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, The Police, Van Halen, and Guns N' Roses -- combined. It's more than a handful of artists have achieved. She's also topped the chart in the UK and many other countries, usually more than once. And that's not considering the singles that made the top ten but not #1. And she's new. It's probably only going to get better (or, if you don't like her, worse) and the article, if deleted, is likely only have to be re-created later. (Also, not sure what you mean by "hits". They're not "hits", they're hits. They're main-chart #1's, and she's already got half as many as Michael Jackson had, and of course a lot more than Dire Straits or Garth Brooks.) Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Since you listing artists, Christina Aguilera,Talib Kweli, Kasabian, The White Stripes, Owl City, and Jonas Brothers. Yes, I know "Other things exist" isn't a reason, but rather that someone with the number of awards and nominations she has, would have the song list rise to the level of notability.Naraht (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This builds out of a discussion at the help desk. At that discussion there was talk about whether such a merge should happen. I looked and thought that it was, at the least, worth a discussion, so I tagged the articles. That all said, I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on this AFD. Other than to say it would likely be about as neat and clear of a solution to the situation as a merge would be. (Obviously, some think the merge idea is not itself neat and clean.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is a merge inappropriate, it is in direct violation of FL and Discography guidelines: a discography is not a listing of songs, it is a listing of released/charted albums and singles. A discography is: "A table-based list of official releases, in chronological order from earliest to latest." This list being merged into a discography is in a direct violation of Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE#What_should_not_be_included - "Unofficial releases of any kind", "Leaked material", "Releases by other artists as a tribute or cover" ect ect.. So again, a merge is not valid. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Moving myself to the Delete column from the Neutral column. The two articles are highly duplicative of each other. And this one appears to me to be the inferior one, for the reasons detailed above by (CK)Lakeshade and Bwilkins. My ultimate concern is handling the double-article situation, and deletion of this one works towards that end just as well as a merge would. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a reasonable list and is, by necessity, more complete than either the category or discography article would be. Since the category only includes songs which have Wikipedia articles and the Discogs article would only contain released albums and singles, I can't find any reason to oppose the existance of a list of all Katy Perry songs. Any issues with referencing and OR for unreleased songs can be handled via normal editing, the subject seems like a perfectly reasonable list. --Jayron32 01:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's highly notable. According to my count, 13 artists have more US #1's than Perry (that's covering the last 57 years) and most of those don't have a lot more. She's had more US #1's than The Eagles, the Beach Boys, Lady GaGa, Jennifer Lopez, The Monkees, Eminem, Diddy, Simon & Garfunkle/Paul Simon, Britney Spears, Donna Summer, yadda yadda. Granted US #1's aren't everything (but she also has hit #1 in the UK, Germany, and many other countries), but it's a pretty big something for starters. So if musicians rate "List of songs by XYZ" (and there are many such articles) she probably would be one of them. So if we want to delete all the "List of songs by XYZ" as a class, that'd be OK (and this should be recast as a multiple nom), but if not, then keep this one. Also, nom, come on: there is one unreleased song on the list, and it should probably be removed, but that's a lot different that deleting the article. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A reasonable content fork, that is well-referenced at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayron32's reasoning in particular. If we are to have "Lists of ______ songs", this one seems notable enough, is fairly well-referenced, and contains songs not covered in the artist's discography or category. That said, I agree with the idea that unsourced (or, more accurately, unsourceable) "unreleased" tracks are probably best removed.  Gongshow Talk 08:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur Metropolitan Region

edit
Kanpur Metropolitan Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubt whether such a region is defined by the city. Can't even find a single official source —Commander (Ping me) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 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, Jujutacular talk 20:57, 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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Village palra District jhansi

edit
Village palra District jhansi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable 

Zzaffuto118 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 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. Appears to be a notable concept within Sikhism. The article already links to a reliable source that suggests several avenues for expanding this beyond a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sehajdhari

edit
Sehajdhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is a complete mess without any credible sources Steinhfer (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and close – AfD is not cleanup. Nomination doesn't present a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination's basis appears to be upon content within the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nominator, please refer to WP:BEFORE procedures for source searching prior to nominating articles for deletion. Reliable sources are readily available for this topic, here's one I added to the article:
  • "Who is a 'sehajdhari'?". The Times Of India. September 2, 2011. Retrieved January 07, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 08:50, 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. Michig (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amdukias (dubstep musician)

edit
Amdukias (dubstep musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Living person with poor sources/references May not be notable Author removed PROD tag w.o valid reason Zzaffuto118 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on this page is true with true reference ... so where is the problem or big deal? than you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.204.250 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Sounds also really too hard technically to contribute here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanclaudeduss (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't doubt what you did was in WP:AGF, the problem is that you need to prove this person's notability, which I don;t think is done because 1) the sources you cite are not valid 2) this is a living person w.o sources. No one has deleted your article and no one will until a few more people weight in. This is not an attack on you, I simply patrol the new pages and tag them with what I think is appropriate. The first tag was less serious then this tag but you removed it without cause. Removing that tag prevents people from discussing concerns about the notability of this article. This tag can't be removed but if enough people support your article then it will be saved. I hope I can help you with anything in the future. Please don't hesitate to ask. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand all the technical thing in this wikilabirynth, So i'm sorry, but it is dubstep musician, so if you know anything in dubstep, check Amdukias site, that's free, and then you can decide or not if this page is legit or at least you'll know what is dubstep.thanks http://soundcloud.com/amdukias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.204.250 (talk) 21:09, 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 talkabout my edits? 10:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alauddin Sabir Kaliyari

edit
Alauddin Sabir Kaliyari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

some copyright violations fixed, likely more in the current article, removing all proven and possible copyright violations from the history would be very messy Steinhfer (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Mondi

edit
Bruno Mondi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable No sources Zzaffuto118 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mondi was a camera-person and a director of photography, and appears to have achieved notability, meeting WP:GNG. This article would benefit from improvements, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, rather than deletion. The article could use more sourcing and inline citations. Here are sources currently in the article, the second and third ones I recently added:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 12:00, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PoppaZoppa

edit
PoppaZoppa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, game fails WP:GNG and cites are very thin on the ground making it fairly unlikely to be notable even if it is attached to a popular service. tutterMouse (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 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 speedly delete per G4 by Fastily. (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Driver

edit
AfDs for this article:
Callum Driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at AFD. Recreated today, but there is no evidence to suggest that the reasons to delete last time (fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG) no longer apply. Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The subject is not notable, could be added to a list of players on the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzaffuto118 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2012‎
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 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 Speedy delete. ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, and G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant Movement International

edit
Immigrant Movement International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable movement. All of the references that were provided we self-published; I found one (which I added to the article), the reliability of which I think is uncertain and which I'm not sure established notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:03, 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. Feel free to contact me (or another administrator) for userfication Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Skool Dance and Club Classics

edit
List of Old Skool Dance and Club Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear original research - this is just someone's list of personal favorite tunes. The author claimed "anyone can add their personal favorites to the list" which is true, but that still makes it the original research of multiple editors. There is no reliable source for this list and no criteria for inclusion, so this is inherently a personal point of view. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately while it looks that way, it isn't. None of those are sources for this list. There is no neutral selection criteria for the list, just a lot of music charts from which the one editor has selected the ones (s)he considers to be "Old Skool Dance and Club Classics". They don't even define what "Old Skool Dance" is, let alone why these particular tunes are considered "classic" and not any of the hundreds of thousands of other songs that charted around the world during this time period. To quote from the article "Included on this list are examples from the most popular genres of the modern Club Scene, like disco, dance, eurodance, nu-disco, house, dance-pop, techno, trance, post-disco, reggae, freestyle music, dubstep, new jack swing, hip-hop, new wave and eurobeat.". Why these genres? What's "Old Skool" about dubstep or new wave"? Why are only UK chart singles considered viable? There is nothing to justify this particular selection, other than the author's personal opinions: in other words its pure synthesis and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. Sparthorse (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Answer to Sparthorse: The reason I choose to include different styles of the clubscene like disco, dance, eurodance, nu-disco, house, dance-pop, techno, trance, post-disco, reggae, freestyle music, dubstep, new jack swing, hip-hop, new wave and eurobeat is because they all belong to and are played in clubs. It is the evolution of clubmusic from disco in the 70's, dance-pop, hip-hop and house in the 80's, eurodance, techno and trance in the 90's etc that the list shows. Those names that are in this list have been heavily played in clubs, and the uk chart-perfomances indicate how popular the tune was at the time. I also have in mind including the US chart perfomances later. Old Skool Dance often refers to the clubscene of the 80's and the 90's. If you look at Music Charts, Music Television, CD Compilations, DVD Compilations and several articles on wikipedia about "disco", "house", "dance", "techno", "trance", "hip-hop", "post-disco", "new wave" etc., then you'll find those names and songs often mentioned as I have included on the list. They stands out as the biggest names and songs of the clubscene at the actual time. It's my intention to make a complete (as possibly) and neutral (as possibly) list over the Old Disco, Dance and Club classics from the beginning in 70's until today. I don't like all the songs on the list myself, but i include them because they deserve their place on the list because they were and are popular (no matter what my own personal opinion is). Others are welcome to fill in names/songs that are missing. And then in time we'll get a more complete list of/about the biggest names and songs that has been important and defining in the evolution of modern clubmusic. Maybe we should change the headline to "List of Old Skool Dance, Disco and (other) Club Classics"? Or "List of Disco, Dance, House and Club Music"? And more references can be added later. User:Wherelovelives (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012
  • Delete. Per the discussion above, it really isn't sourced. If this is a category of interest, there should be a (sourced) article Old Skool Dance and Club Music defining and describing it, but since the term isn't really defined, and there doesn't seem to be criteria for what is and isn't on the list, this article seems opinion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a heavy heart. Lots of work went into this list but, in the end, it's just a personal music playlist. This should be on someone's blog not Wikipedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE
  • Userfy in order that definition and further sources can be included. -- Trevj (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel of St. Urban, Košaki

edit
Chapel of St. Urban, Košaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: non notable, not sourced U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liveclicker

edit
Liveclicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject appears to be a non-notable software company. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither analyst reports, nor coverage in small, trade-only readership blogs like "Internet Retailer" or "Website Magazine" really count towards notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Retailer is not just a blog. It operates a monthly magazine, two web sites, two e-mail newsletters, three annual conferences and trade shows, and five research guides. It is essentially the Fortune 500 of the e-commerce world. -Nick Wheatley —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable incident. The plane was a write off. At most it merits a mention in the airport or aircraft article. William 19:25, 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 KEEP 'Snow KEEP' Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maksut Narikbaev

edit
Maksut Narikbaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 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 no consensus. A more general RfC on more such articles might be usefull, but that is beyond the scope of Articles for Deletion. There is not enough discussion here to close as keep, though the discussion does lean in that direction. Relisting when there is a preference to solve the broader issue trough an RfC is not of any use either. For now, there is no consensus on how to handle these kind of articles in general, nor is there consensus in this particular case. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Keynes Council election, 2012

edit
Milton Keynes Council election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Future event No sources Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Defense(Short film)

edit
Alien Defense(Short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Possible Ad No sources Zzaffuto118 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 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 redirect to Omnivore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyvore

edit
Polyvore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this necessary? Couldn't this be merged with another article. Also the reference is wikipedia Zzaffuto118 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a merger, I proposing deletion on the grounds that other articles probably already cover thisZzaffuto118 (talk) 01:04, 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. With all due respect, this article does not demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG, and keep !votes do not address it properly except for Ammodramus's one - and even he admits that he found no serious coverage. Max Semenik (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley J. Jaworski

edit
Stanley J. Jaworski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. It also lacks proper sources. Sabre ball (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although army generals are all notable, I don't think the same applies to National Guard generals. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - National Guard general officers are not notable by any standard I've ever seen. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say that generals in the reserve forces are every bit as notable as generals in the regular forces. They still hold their ranks in the forces of that country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - why? They seldom if ever actually command troops, they get minimal or non-existent coverage in the press; they merely hold a nominal title. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, if you think rank in the reserve forces is "nominal" and they do not command troops you should probably do a little more research. Officers in the reserve forces hold full rank and command units just like regular officers. A general in the National Guard holds the same rank as a general in the regular army and has exactly the same authority. National Guard units serve overseas in wars on exactly the same basis as regular troops and their officers have the same status as regular officers of the same rank. They therefore meet the criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE (and yes, I'm aware that it's not an accepted guideline, but it is widely accepted). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I have to agree that in terms of notability there should be no difference between a solider from the National Guard or the regular army, but on the same hand though I think Wikipedia's overarching policies have to outweigh the policies of individual projects. Given that, Stanley Jaworski just isn't notable. --Sabre ball (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; per WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply; Seeing as how it would appear the rules have invalidated my request for removal I'll instead ask why you would want an article for every flag officer. In the discussion leading up to notability rules for military biographies someone stated that including every recipient of certain medals would flood Wikipedia with biographies no one cared about or were insignificant. How is including every flag officer any different? Surely that thought occurred to someone else... --Sabre ball (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WHOCARES is not a reason to delete (or, for that matter, not create) artcles. Wikipedia is not paper. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simply because if they've reached that rank they are, in the opinion of many of us, by definition notable. We have endless biographies of minor "celebrities" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) and sportspeople who have played one professional game. Many editors here consider that civil servants and military officers who have reached very senior positions after years of service are far more notable. They may not be as "glamorous" or as well-covered by the shallow, celebrity-obsessed media, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. That's actually the advantage of an honours system like the British one - it's hard for even the deletionists to argue that someone who has been recognised by their country and received a high national honour like a knighthood or CBE (which most generals receive) isn't notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I must throw the WP:JUSTAPOLICY flag. --Sabre ball (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - the National Guard isn't a reserve force anymore, for better or for worse. They're routinely deployed, on the front line and in the first wave, and the chief of the National Guard is even on the Joint Cheifs of Staff now. They're a full-fledged military service, and a one-star general passes WP:SOLDIER. That said, though, I think more evidence is needed here to see if there's a reasonable expectation of passing the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, failing WP:GNG. No "significant coverage" by sources "independent of the subject". --Ifnord (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. WP:SOLDIER suggests that officers reaching the rank of general will usually attract sufficient independent coverage to be notable. My Google search seemed to indicate otherwise. However, it showed that Jaworski sat on the Commission to Address Gun Violence, convened by the governor of Penna. in 2005 (source), and that he's presented at a couple of university conferences: at Duke's Triangle Institute for Security Studies (source) and at Chapel Hill's "Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense" in 2003 (source). This might be enough to nudge him up into notability.
Incidentally, Jaworski has retired (source); if the article's kept, that fact should be incorporated into it. Ammodramus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Gill (actor)

edit
James Gill (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Zzaffuto118 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the original nomination -- this actor is not notable. I don't know why the nominator tried to retract the nomination -- the original nomination is entirely valid. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not able to find any reliable sources about this actor. Although the IMDb implies he is mentioned in two Fangoria articles, it seems likely these mentions even if not trivial would be at two, insufficient to meet the inclusion standards here. His roles appear to be gaining in significance and an upcoming role may make him notable but without sources which may become available at that time notability cannot currently be established.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:39, 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 Speedy Deleted as an R3 implausible redirect. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Press

edit
Collins Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect created in error: Collins Press and HarperCollins are not related organisations or articles. Fattonyni (talk) 18:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dokapon MillenniumQuest

edit
Dokapon MillenniumQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also included in this nomination:

Dokapon DX: Wataru Sekai wa Oni Darake
Dokapon Journey
Dokapon

Non-notable video games. Article are totally unreferenced. Few if any of the articles in the corresponding navbox appear notable either. Has early editing history of user bearing same name. Stedrick (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Taken from one of the articles:The Wii version was nominated for Best RPG for the Wii by IGN in its 2008 video game awards. --http://bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/7.html -- Sure, these articles are in terrible shape, but surely the coverage exists out there if the game was nominated for such an award on such a major gaming website/reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Video games commercially released on mainstream home/handheld consoles through physical media on an international basis should have articles; even more so when the developer/publisher is a commercially successful company. I agree the state of the articles is rather dismal, but AfD is not clean-up. There is no doubt in my mind that there are sources for at least two of those articles. Salvidrim! 20:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I would not object to merging the Japan only games into a List of Dokapon games, properly formatted with relevant data (IE like this) with similar details for the Dokapon games released in the west. That's not a !vote for that to happen right now, though. The ones released in the States and Europe - Dokapon and Dokapon Journey - are clearly notable. [7], [8] for Dokapon, [9] for Dokapon Journey. Full-price console games are expensive, and the vast majority are covered by multiple sources, often magazines which are not available to view online easily, the only stumbling block is Japanese-only games which few editors are equipped to do anything with unless the West's journalists get interested for some reason. Someoneanother 02:37, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Upstairs Club

edit
The Upstairs Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Does not fit WP:N. Simply someone trying to make themselves seem important via WP. Clubwiki (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ERichards Consulting

edit
ERichards Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unreferenced, company. Fails WP:CORP. Stedrick (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Signs (video game)

edit
Dark Signs (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable video game of questionable notability. No claims or signs of notability, no references. Little significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Google news search on "Dark Signs" "Vectra Media" shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, no evidence of notability. Can it be speedy deleted? Note that it was speedied twice yesterday, and deleted after an expired PROD last week. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page and I am still working on it. I have added external links now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Trimm (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — George.Trimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. No sign of any notability, nor any reliable thid party sources. The article was already created and deleted multiple times in the past, and it shows no improvement in its current incarnation that would justify not deleting it yet again.Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the external links! — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Trimm (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only external links provided in the article are only to the project's own pages. That does not fulfil the requirements of having reliable third party sources to support the game's notability.Rorshacma (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, what is needed are independent reliable sources and neither of the two external links qualify. I also checked sites such as Gamerankings and Metacritic to see if I could find any reviews but neither site had an entry for the game. That means that no mainstream gaming site ever reviewed this game. That does not necessaly mean that the subject is not notable but it is a bad sign especially since the game came out in 2006.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 03:34, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DHWANI CET

edit
DHWANI CET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable festival, no reliable sources, no significant coverage found via Google. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Was prodded, prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • DHWANI is most popular and largest social and cultural festival (started in 2001 -in 60th anniversary of Starting of technical education in Kerala) in kerela which brings almost 50,000 students of different engineering collages across the state/country.So don't delete the page
dhwani cet can found via Google.offical website can be found by searching Dhwani 2012,since title of web-page has been recently changed due to upcoming Dhwani version "Dhwani 2012".

Abilngeorge (talk) 17:24, 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Crisalli

edit
Joseph Crisalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published author of questionable notability. Little significant coverage from independent sources, no major claims of notability. Google search on "Joseph Crisalli" "Stalking the Belle Époque" (his website) shows only 12 unique results, none from independent reliable sources. A search on "Joseph Crisalli" "The Garnet Red" (his book) shows only 73 unique, nearly all sales links - no significant coverage or reviews. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New citation and information supporting notability have been added. While this author is not a household name, he appears to be well-regarded in the field of antiques and Victoriana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.103.67 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.183.103.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was redirect to Sai Ying Pun#Schools. Looking over the discussion, only the merge !votes have policy on their side. A long history does not convery notability. No additional sources were offered in this discussion to strenghten the idea that this primary school is notable under the GNG. Guerillero | My Talk 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Sing Primary School

edit
Li Sing Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Convention with such schools is (I understand) to delete and/or redirect. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Minghong. I understand that you are the creator of the article, and thank you for your contributions. However, our general convention is not to have stand-alone articles on primary schools. The fact that the school is a government school, or that it was named after a person who lived a long time ago, or that he was a businessman or philanthropist, does not confer notability on the school. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WRONG! and deceptive comment. There is no such "general convention": there have been endless talks about the topic but no consensus has been reached. The mass deletion is the statistical result of people like you conducting a mass deletion campaign, not the result of any Wikipedia guideline or convention. Your "thanking" the article's creator appears as plain inadequate to me. olivier (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I indicated above that "our general convention is not to have stand-alone articles on primary schools". I based that on my observation of closes of AFDs of primary schools -- they have from what I've seen not been to keep stand-alone articles for primary schools, unless there is a special showing of notability, which in the articles I've seen brought to AfD has generally not been the case. Either they have been redirected (as Kud, for example, indicates has been the case in 100s of AfD closures), or they have been deleted. In fact, some editors have indicated that the convention to redirect such articles is so great that they should be redirected without any discussion if an editor believes that a redirect is in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Merriam-Webster online: "convention d : a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention." That's very close to what we call "consensus", here on Wikipedia.
There is no such agreement or consensus. There may be several active and vocal users in favor of deletion, but many others object it, therefore talking of "our general convention" is inappropriate. olivier (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had used the phrase to refer to "a practice ... widely observed in a group ... a custom". Which, along with "General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes" is what the Free Dictionary defines the phrase as. Apologies if you thought it meant anything other. And, as you see above, I didn't say the practice was (as I understood it) to delete -- but rather to delete and/or redirect. Said another way -- the general practice that I have seen of such primary schools, which only state claims such as "named after a businessman" who lived a long time ago, is that they are not sufficiently notable to Keep, but rather the practice with them has been to not keep them as stand-alone articles (whether by redirect, delete, or in some cases where appropriate RS-supported material exists, by merge).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, the term "convention" was ambiguous in this context. A redirect is practically very close to a deletion, as the content becomes only visible in the article's history, making it invisible to most Wikipedia readers. The article as it stands today gives valuable insights into the history and current situation of primary education in Hong Kong, and for this reason the material is worth being kept. A pure blanking+redirect to Sai Ying Pun would remove this from Wikipedia, and I don't see it as an improvement. olivier (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The convention only exists with regards to non-notable schools. This is not the case here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:38, 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) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and strongly object to the deceptive wording of the nomination. There is no "convention" to delete such articles. Also note that User:Epeefleche is engaged in a mass AfD'ing of primary schools across Wikipedia, resulting in unassuming and sincere editors fighting a deletionist (see User talk:Kudpung for some details). This has resulted in articles blanking and turned into a redirect without any part of the article being merged into the redirect target. Moreover, this article's creator User:minghong lacks English language fluency, as self-described on his user page and there is a risk of this being taken advantage of in this discussion. Finally, this specific school is one of the few early schools of Hong Kong still in operation and it has substantial historical value. Also, in its early days, education received in such a primary school was the only education many of the students would receive in their life. Finally, good references in Chinese language can certainly be found. Deleting the article will just prevent this from happening. olivier (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - As is usually the case with primary schools, per what is basically an established consensus. None of the arguments that have been made seem to describe this school as more notable than other primary schools, beyond "it's old".--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with Olivier's sentiments about the mass deletions. As per Olivier this is a very old school with a long history. The sources are all in Chinese, and the links need fixing. Specialist help is required not deletion. Note too that there is already an article on this school in the Chinese-language Wikipedia. There is no requirement that sources have to be in the English language. As no Chinese-speaking contributors have contributed to this debate no one has been able to verify the sources or translate the content of Chinese Wikipedia article. Dahliarose (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you linked to and read the Chinese sources and checked for others? I have. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murari Sharma

edit
Murari Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of this person; one trivial mention and a bunch of unrelated people with the same name. I'd love it if someone could check in Hindi, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, I started this article on 1 December 2011 after that I could not give it more time as I was out of station (busy in Wikiconference India at Mumbai). Today I have edited it and given the relevent references. If any body wants to see the cuttings of "Abhyuday" (dated 4 May 1929) he may see it in the Hindi Article on Ram Prasad Bismil. With this note ed referendom I urge not to delete this article. With regards,Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 08:15, 30 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article appears to be well-sourced at this time, with many improvements and reference additions performed by User:Krantmlverma, although the sources aren't linked to web pages. Assuming good faith that these are reliable tertiary sources, keep. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 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  09:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quietus (short story)

edit
Quietus (short story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Although the author is notable for other works, the article gives no reason to think that this particular short story is particularly notable, and the article consists only of a plot summary. I put a notability tag on it in March of last year, and in the intervening nine months nobody has put forth any arguments saying that the story is notable (for that matter, nobody made any changes to the article at all). So I propose that the article should be deleted as not notable; if an editor wanted to add content about the story, it could easily be added to the article on the short story collection of which it is a part. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 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. Concept is unverified and no citations are given to indicate the notability of the term (1 hit on Gbooks, 1 real one in GNews), so a redirect isn't even in the cards. Plus, there is no verified content worth merging from this personal essay. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superfly lifestyle

edit
Superfly lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability; article consists entirely of personal view on the subject. Zzarch (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if the claims about inclusion in reliable sources could be specifically verified prior to making a decision on this AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeHavilland – Political Intelligence & Parliamentary Monitoring

edit
DeHavilland – Political Intelligence & Parliamentary Monitoring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the company's website confirms they exist, I can't find any independent discussion of them to indicate that they are notable (either WP:GNG or WP:CORP). Article was Prodded, but prod was removed by IP editor with no explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 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. Article creator agrees with deletion (WP:CSD#g7). Can be re-created when the journal meets inclusion criteria -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Health

edit
Journal of Global Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal, not listed in any selective major databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." De-PRODded by article creator because: "I have removed the proposed deletion notice as this journal runs for one year now, it has applied for PubMed indexing this week and is run by one of the biggest research teams. Soon it will receive an impact factor as well." That the journal has been in existence for 1 year (and has published 2 issues) is irrelevant. As an open-access journal, it will certainly be listed in PubMed, but whether it will be included in the selective part (MEDLINE) is another matter. At this point, there is no indication either that the journal is going to be included in Thomson-Reuters databases (and hence receive an impact factor). See WP:CRYSTAL. At this point, the PROD rationale stands, hence: delete (without prejudice for re-creation at a later time if the journal gets included in selective databases or independent sources about the journal become available). Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 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 Keep. Nobody other than the nominator advocated for deletion, and the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palringo

edit
AfDs for this article:
Palringo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted non-notable software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 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 Nomination withdrawn. It is clear the article will be kept, and there is no point wasting more time on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiangsu and Chekiang Primary School

edit
Kiangsu and Chekiang Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary schools are not considered notable by default, and no reason is given to regard this as an exception. Also, the article is unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Since I started this AfD and said that the article was unsourced, eight references have been added. I have looked at all of them. Unfortunately the little amount of Chinese I learnt many years ago and subsequently largely forgot is of no use in following them, so I am relying on Google translations. One of the references is a photocopy of a newspaper, so Google translation is not possible, and I can make no comment on its content. (Incidentally, it is almost certainly a copyright infringement, and so should not be linked to from Wikipedia, which is why I am not adding a link here.) http://www.chsc.hk/psp/psp_sch_list.php?lang_id=1&search_mode=&frmMode=pagebreak&district_id=2&page=3 is a mere list of schools, and does nothing towards establishing notability. http://kcs.edu.hk/history.htm is promotional in character, and the Google translation includes the notice "Copyright by Kiangsu & Chekiang School (Nursery, Kindergarten, Primary & Int'l Section) 2000", so it is clearly not an independent source. http://lifein.hk/Education/PrimarySchDet.aspx?id=491&name=Kiangsu%20&%20Chekiang%20Primary%20School%20%28W.D.%29 is a bare list of facts about the school, such as the school's address, the name of the principal, the year of foundation, the school hours, etc, so it does nothing to establish notability. http://www.wxjy.com.cn/xwzx/readnews.asp?newsid=17648 gives one passing mention of the school. http://life.mingpao.com/htm/primary2006/cfm/content.cfm?Path=sch_pri/sch_pri7.htm does give more significant coverage to the school. The page is written in glowing terms, so much so as to cause me to wonder how much of an independent source it is. I have looked round the site to try to determine its nature. The site has various pages giving glowing praise to various private schools, and also at least one page generously praising private education in general. I am open to correction by anyone with a knowledge of Chinese, but it seems to me that the site is a promotional vehicle for schools. http://www.webcitation.org/64T4KyNk4 also gives glowing praise to the school, but is not very substantial: certainly not enough so to establish notability. http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_6605/KiangsuChekiang.pdf is a report of an appraisal by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong. The fact that such an appraisal has been carried out does nothing to establish notability: millions of schools undergo inspections and appraisals. Unfortunately, although the author of the article has evidently put some effort into providing references, the sum total of them comes nowhere near to the substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that we need. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement that all citations be independent of the subject. I would add that for a school that has had the same principal for 48 years, their histories are inevitably intimately intertwined, and it is wholly appropriate to rely on it as a substantial source. In addition, the key source for this article is the Ming Pao article (news clipping), and while the web page itself may be copyright violation (although it may not), it does indicate such an article's existence can be verified. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree w/Oh that independent sources are appropriate (within limits) to use to source an article, but also believe that they do not count towards notability. Oh -- we have a convention of not keeping primary schools as stand-alone article, absent unusual circumstances. Can you clarify for us the full breadth of the circumstances here that you feel warrant an exception to the usual approach of redirecting or deleting or merging such an article? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would argue that despite the convention for not keeping primary school articles, that does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. I live in Hong Kong, and know for a fact that the school is extremely notable. You stop anybody in the street – and I mean any Hong Kong resident, and they will tell you exactly what this school is notable for (as clearly stated in the lead section). I will try to find more independent sources to further develop the article. As web archives of Chinese newspapers are somewhat inadequate, I will have to look at printed sources. It's clearly inappropriate to merge or redirect, for I can see no suitable candidate target. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I certainly agree both that a) the convention appears to exist; and b) the convention does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. What I am trying to get at is what the verifiable circumstances are that put this PS into the "exception" category. It may be that some would suggest a redirect/merge -- if that were the course -- to the municipality, but hopefully we won't need to go that route. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Hope" is not relevant here: in many cases, mergers or redirects are fine. But in this case, as Ohconfucius mentioned, it would be a challenge to find an existing appropriate target. North Point would be a redirect/merge target candidate, but the material would fit rather poorly in the article. Maybe an alternative would be to create the Kiangsu & Chekiang Residents (HK) Association article, and include the material in an "education" section, as it is also related to Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Shatin) and Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Kwai Chung). In any case, establishing the first Mandarin speaking school in Cantonese and English speaking Hong Kong in 1953 (then a British Colony) had major political significance in a tense context, both locally (Hong Kong 1956 riots), in China (Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns) and in the region (Korean War). I therefore believe that noone here would disagree with the fact that this school is notable, or is at least very probably notable. What is lacking are sources accepted as reliable to support some of the key information in the article. I am sure that we all have already seen this situation many times and we all know that such sources will eventually be found. Some ways to improve the article could be to give more context: 1) about the significance of Mandarin teaching at that time in Hong Kong and 2) give some information about the Kiangsu & Chekiang Residents (HK) Association itself. olivier (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: an important part of the history of North Point and Hong Kong in general. This is a good reason to regard this primary school as an exception. Plus, the article is now sourced, even if the sources are not perfect at the moment. As a consequence, I cannot agree with the nomination. olivier (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =( This school in particular seems to have a size to it showing obvious notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok so the sources are not Time (magazine) but they aren't terrible either, and there are a reasonable number of them. As for 'why is this school notable': most are the sources are consistent in their coverage of this school as a pioneer of Mandarin teaching in Hong Kong. Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceseed

edit
Spaceseed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability from the current content or a search on the Internet Peteinterpol (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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 Speedy delete. The article is virtually identical to the one discussed at the previous AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imo.im

edit
AfDs for this article:
Imo.im (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once deleted web service/software, that fails WP:N. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 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) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Villarreal (soccer)

edit
Jose Villarreal (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, no reason given. Association football player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has yet to play at a fully-professional level of football - has only just signed with a pro-team. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 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) 00:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow corporation

edit
Hollow corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term of "hollow corporation" as it is used in this article is a neologism coined by HotwirePR. The article was added into Wikipedia by a user that shares the same name as the marketing executive for Hotwire PR and a search does not bring up anything to show that this is a notable term or idea. What does come up under this term does not describe what the article describes. I believe it to be PR for HotwirePR, but not to the point where it could be speedied. The page's only two sources are for a journal entry that doesn't seem to use the term "hollow corporation" at all and a link to an article that does not appear to be a reliable source. Previously PRODed for being a neologism.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 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) 00:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Tsiskarishvili

edit
David Tsiskarishvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 08:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 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. Only the delete !votes use policy to support their arguments (WP:NOTDIR). The keep votes seem to follow this vote, "Could be very useful if it is cleaned up." I can't see how this is poicy based. Guerillero | My Talk 23:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of weather websites in the Philippines

edit
List of weather websites in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List article without reliable 3rd party sources. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY MakeSense64 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While you have added three references, these are not "independent third party sources" needed to establish notability. Source #1 and #3 are primary sources taken directly from the website in question, and source #2 can hardly be called reliable and is barely a mention. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments –
  • I moved the second link you mention to external links. The other two are to verify information. Still needs more work. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my !vote to weak keep. I initially agree with the general idea of merging information from this article to a new article titled, "List of weather services", or something to that effect. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does not fail WP:NOTDIR, the topic range is narrow and discriminate; the article does not read like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" or "A complete exposition of all possible details", etc. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added more content to the article, including information from a reliable source – English news website of the Taiwan-based China Times News Group. The second source listed below (article title: "Launching of Automated Weather Station") is a primary source that verifies information; not to establish notability.

In 2011, Taiwan donated fifteen weather stations to the Philippines' Department of Science and Technology, and it has been reported that "The Philippines weather bureau will also share information from the new weather stations with Taiwan's Central Weather Bureau, helping expand the range of Taiwan's weather forecasts."[1] PAGASA and the Philippines Department of Science and Technology work jointly in the implementation of weather stations.[2]

—Northamerica1000(talk) 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded the article, including verification from a reliable source – City Government of Naga; added:

The city of Naga uses information from Typhoon2000 in its iTyphoon application, which is used to on various mobile devices to provide weather updates.[3]

—Northamerica1000(talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is a Wikipedia article for the entity that has its website listed there, then it should be on the list. Also if it is a government organization or part of a major educational or research facility. If its just some guy's blog, then you have to ask, is this blog notable, do news sites ever link to it, where do they get their information from, etc. If they just look up information online and post it on their blog, they probably aren't notable. Who belongs on or off the list can be discussed on the talk page and worked out there. Dream Focus 07:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - Most of the notable organisations who forecast for the Philippines also forecast for the Western Pacific ocean in general (180-100E roughly) so i would like to propose a rename to List of weather websites in the western pacific ocean. Notable organisations include Typhoon 2000, the JMA, JTWC PAGASA etc and not Visayas Typhoon Center which is just some guys blog.Jason Rees (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then I would rather see it renamed to "List of weather services in...". A "List of websites...." type article is going too much in the direction of a directory page, and encourages other editors to add their "websites" (~ blogs ..) to it. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and out of these three only one is really Philippine, the others being from Japan and Hawai, USA. A global list of weather services would make sense, but on a per country basis it becomes a useless list with only a few notable entries. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded and improved. In my opinion this article (at this time) does not read like a directory or a resource for conducting business, and does not have a promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the creation of a List of weather services, and then any useful entries from this article can be selectively merged into it. "List of weather websites" is a name I would avoid. Most weather services have websites, but their activity/service is usually not limited to online reporting. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Which of the eight points listed in WP:NOTDIR are these three above delete !votes referring to? A clarification would be helpful toward this discussion. Please view the current version of this article prior to replying, as the article has received significant changes. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Diqdaqah. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Degdaga

edit
Degdaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero non-trivial gbooks hits. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for lack of refs for well over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 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 keep. Nominator withdrew, sole delete opinion reconsidered. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piran Coastal Galleries

edit
Piran Coastal Galleries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this gallery exists, I could not find substantial non-trivial RS coverage. Zero refs, for which it has been tagged for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can find some non-trivial coverage using google search, however, most is in Slovene. The article, regretfully, is in an awful shape. --Tone 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero google news hits, limited google book hits (and those are only directory entries), google search brings up unremarkable directory entries as well. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient reliable sources have been located to adequately source this article, I'm changing my !vote to keep with the assumption that those who have found those sources will improve this article with them.--RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The site of Slovenia's Ministry of Culture has this text "Since their founding a range of well-received exhibitions prepared by the Coastal Galleries have had a major influence on the visual arts scene, not only in the coastal region but also in the rest of Slovenia"[15] which is at least some claim to notability. AllyD (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Culture.si is a reliable source and, in my opinion, sufficient for the claim of notability. Slovene sources could also help, there's no obstacle to adding those. — Yerpo Eh? 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The galleries have hosted exhibitions of top artists, such as Zoran Mušič. The A+A Gallery, one of the Galleries, participates at the Venice Biennale. I think those two reasons should suffice. --Tone 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does that meet either our general notability criteria as reflected in GNG, or any other accepted wp notability criteria? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It generates a significant coverage, the first point of the GNG. As said, sources exist, they just need to be incorporated into the article. --Tone 08:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need substantial, non-trivial coverage/discussion of the galleries themselves in RSs. Mentions of gallery exhibitions that are passing in nature, for example, will not confer notability. Furthermore, notability is not inherited -- An organization is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it -- if the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. And I'm not sure about what the participation is of the A+A Gallery at the Venice Bienielle ... I could not find mention of it when I did a search on the VB site.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a substantial, non-trivial coverage/discussion of the galleries themselves in an RS. The reference has been included in the article and was mentioned in the AllyD's comment just before mine. Do you disagree with that? A quick internet search also reveals a museums.si entry, and the coverage of an award presented by this institution in a national newspaper. — Yerpo Eh? 14:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
being a govt resource gives culture.si some credibility but the link above is essentially a directory entry and doesn't cover the subject in much detail. Official sites which are there to promote tourism are great for verifying details in the articles, but they aren't that helpful in determining notability as they tend to be indiscriminate in their inclusion policies.
Comment can you elaborate on how you feel this subject meets notability guidelines? WP:JUSTAVOTE !votes tend to get passed over by closing admins, especially when other voters (on both sides of the issue) have detailed arguments, most with links.--RadioFan (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", listed above and elsewhere. For example, this article describes the institution as being among the four most recognizable galleries in Slovenia and being the only such institution in Slovenia that has an outpost abroad. Istrian Encyclopedia also contains an article on the institution,[16], describing it as the central gallery institution in the Slovenian Littoral. Its notability is also explained in this article (pg. 30). --Eleassar my talk 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Note that many websites have this gallery listed as "Obalne Galerije Piran". Reference searches under this name may yield more reliable sources. Also note that, per the article, there are galleries in Koper, Slovenia and Venice, Italy. Searches for Italian sources under the name "Gallerie Costiere Pirano" may be fruitful. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this could be good info. Instead of leaving it for others, could you go ahead and share what you found when you used these as searchs and how you think they might help this article meet notability guidelines?--RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia is volunteer driven, perhaps you could try some searches yourself, rather than suggesting what others should do to counter your !vote to delete this article. Instead of taking time to type suggestions about what other users should do, perhaps consider using that time instead to do some source searching! Northamerica1000(talk) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NA -- you are, as usual, doing an exemplary job here. Which is appreciated. You are of course correct that wp is volunteer-driven, and that you didn't have to help by responding to RF's request. You could have simply left it with your indication of the alternate names we weren't aware of, which was a great help. I thank you for taking it even a step further. At the same time, I'm guessing that RF wasn't trying to tweak you, or to irritate you, or to suggest that you were required to do anything ... but just making a good faith request, which you were free to satisfy or ignore. I've seem my share of rudeness by an editor or two this week, but I at least didn't read into RF's request what you may have. Best, and thanks once more.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RadioFan's comment wasn't interpreted by me as rude whatsoever. My replying comment was simply a suggestion. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 11:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah -- sorry for the misunderstanding. It can happen at times, when one reads the words, but can't see the writer's expression (or the implied smiley face). RF, from what I've seen, and even from his comments in his !vote above, does do a good job searching for sources as a general matter, and I respect both of you greatly, and just wanted to make sure there wasn't any disconnect. Happy new year. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – Topic passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 11:16, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makan Dembélé

edit
Makan Dembélé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, a football player that has never played at a notable level (Malian first division and Irani 2nd division are not notable) .. article can be restored when he makes his debut with JS Kabylie TonyStarks (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Harm

edit
Al-Harm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am having trouble finding RS substantial coverage of these people. The article is no help, as despite its length it has zero refs. Tagged for zero refs for close to 4 years. Created by an SPA named Harem. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mmm, the Sacred Mosque in Mecca is called the Masjid al-Haram so perhaps the people are the Al-Haram (and maybe so is the SPA). There could be many variant spellings here including الحرام. Article is pretty much OR (or CV perhaps) but I'll take a look at sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed !vote to Speedy Keep, as nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Gaines

edit
Kelly Gaines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable character without any reliable sources to assert notability therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Tortelli

edit
Loretta Tortelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor character in the show without sources to assert notability therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are not required in articles to "assert notability" - there is no policy to that effect. If the nominator wants some more sources then he should add them himself. He might then understand the topic better. In this case the character was not only a recurring character in Cheers but also had a starring role in a separate show, The Tortellis. This is documented in detail in sources such as The American Family on Television. Warden (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Warden is correct that the sources need not be reflected in the wp article, for purposes of withstanding an AfD. The key question is whether RS sourcing that is both substantial and independent exists. Here, we have articles such as this one, devoted to the subject of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Added to the article, (from User:Epeefleche's comment above):
—Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added: Bjorklund, Dennis A. (1997). Toasting Cheers: An Episode Guide To the 1982-1993 Comedy Series With Cast Biographies and Character Profiles. Praetorian Publishing. p. 17. ISBN 0-899-50962-2.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madha Airport

edit
Madha Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not even sure this place exists. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. The url in the article infobox does not relate to any airport by this name. Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I checked for either an IATA or ICAO code, which is the international registry of airports, and was unable to find anything. This suggests it either doesn't exist, or is so small it might as well not exists (e.g. it will never have references) Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 06:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some sort of runway there, but other than that there seems to be little more than wiki mirrors - no evidence of whether it is used or of any sort of notability - therefore delete.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lenticel (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeb Basketball League

edit
Seeb Basketball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Tagged for lack of refs since March. Dearth of substantial RS coverage. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 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 merge to Bahauddin Zakariya University. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahauddin Zakariya University Sub-Campus, Layyah

edit
Bahauddin Zakariya University Sub-Campus, Layyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the university is notable, its sub-campus does not appear notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for nearly a year. Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken patty

edit
Chicken patty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zero refs, very little content, and dearth of rs coverage. Tagged for notability, and lack of refs, for well over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article, less about chicken patties, but has some interesting information:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 05:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work by NA. The article focus has been expanded, but since it has a broad title that is fine, and NA did nice work here. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the other delete !voter has changed to keep based on the improvements, I can do the same (and do), so this can be considered withdrawn. Kudos to NA.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Added to the article, "The USDA considers chicken patties as a food commodity.":
—Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 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 Withdrawn - Did not realise that such games were seen as "inherently notable", will take it up at WT:NSPORTS and renominate at a later date. Mtking (edits) 06:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Fiesta Bowl

edit
1993 Fiesta Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER article does not demonstrate "enduring historical significance" of this game. Mtking (edits) 04:45, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UltraMon

edit
UltraMon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google search reveals almost no sources that would incur notability to this piece of software (in fact, only one Lifehacker article). Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


View AfD to see references

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of multi-monitor software

edit
Comparison of multi-monitor software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First of all, Windows is the most common, but not the only OS. Second, Wikipedia is not a directory or a software repository. Third, this is not an encylopedic comparison. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as current content only makes it harder to write an appropriate comparison (if needed at all). P.S.: it seems that the current implied consensus is to include only the contestants that have their own articles, but in this case it renders the comparison senseless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

°Don't be rediculous, this is an incredibly useful article. If you don't you Windows then why not improve it with other OS's instead of proposing to delete something I found on Google and helped me alot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.43.77 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article useful - but I think adding info on additional OS would be even more useful. I'd like to see info on Unix, Linux, Mac, and whether Windows emulation programs could run the software on different OS. Gramery (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, most likely not since display drivers are below what emulators can give in OS architecture. The article as it stands is a violation of WP:NOTDIR; we'd like to see other articles on software besides the one piece that has an article already.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 
The current version of the article is too Windows-centric, it can't be amended with other platforms. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:11, 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. With no prejudice to an early repeat AfD in case notability is not proven then too. Wifione Message 09:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks

edit
AfDs for this article:
2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly as a news story this has got coverage in the US, however there does not appear to be any "enduring historical significance" to this crime and the coverage that it is getting is just the sort of routine coverage of breaking news especially as it took place during the traditional post Christmas- pre New Year period when news is thin on the ground.
Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENTS. Mtking (edits) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects:
To elaborate on my !vote:
  • Wikipedia does not keep articles around in the hope that the topic may someday become notable. If we did, every high school drama student and prep school athlete would have articles. The process is first, notability, and then—and only then—article creation. If the event does happen to someday become notable, then it's no big deal to undelete it or to move a userfied version into mainspace. Keeping this around because it might someday be notable is simply against policy.
  • Those claiming that the first AFD has bearing on this one are incorrect. The result of that was not a speedy keep, it was a speedy close. That's because (as the page says) the nominator should have started a merge discussion, not an AFD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Too early to tell whether it is notable (see WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS: a flurry of coverage on the day of the attacks and a few days after, even if international, doesn't demonstrate lasting encyclopedic significance), but if it does turn out to be notable due to historical impact or discussion in longer-term works such as academic books (I phrase it this way to avoid suggesting that I believe it might become notable due to what will be another short flurry of coverage around trial and sentencing before the event is never heard of again), it would be a shame to lose the work. To Magister Scienta: please be aware that the previous speedy keep is not an endorsement of the article, it's just what tends to happen when the nominator isn't actually proposing deletion. Also re your comments on the article talk page, you misunderstand the relationship of WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS - the whole point of the latter is that not every event covered in the newspaper is encyclopedic, which is why we have WP:EVENT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for now, to early to speak about sustained notability in the long run.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like the way we keep all those High School Soccer players because it is to early to tall if they will end up playing for FC Barcelona ? I agree with Roscelese above that Userfy is the best way to do preserve any work pending a clear indication of any "enduring historical significance". Mtking (edits) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: YummyDonutsmmm (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: User:YummyDonutsmmm is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Daniel L. Barth. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the policy issue here, this is an Encyclopedia and not a news service. Mtking (edits) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it encyclopedic is that 100 years from now people will still look this up to study about, unless prevented by the 2012 phenomenon or whatever.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, more likely than not it will be forgotten, and if it does come to pass then it can be undeleted. As it stands it is just a news reports no in-depth analysis it is just one of the countless crimes committed globally every day, what makes this any more worthy of an Encyclopedia entry than all the rest. Mtking (edits) 21:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:N/CA "...media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." Since this event is undeniably high-profile (that fact has been stipulated by pretty much every editor involved) and since the article's sources are reliable, non-trivial, and intellectually independent, it seems to me that this policy is a valid justification of the article's notability. Magister Scientatalk 23:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the coverage is only routine coverage of the crime exacerbated by the timing of the act, no "enduring historical significance" has even been suggested, let alone cited. Mtking (edits) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues with your line of thought. 1) You keep on quoting the above line but please remember it's full context, "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance." Having an enduring historical significance is not an absolute requirement for an article but simply one way (albeit a common way) to establish notability for an event. 2) Even if this was a required criterion (which again I really believe it is not), the event is too recent to effectively be measured by this criterion. It's commonsense that when something can not be logically applied, it should not be logically applied. Magister Scientatalk 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a policy based reason and will likely be discounted by the closing admin. Mtking (edits) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised; we had the Beltway sniper attacks back in 2002 and another D.C. sniper the following year. --MuZemike 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beltway sniper attacks: three weeks, ten deaths. 2003 West Virginia sniper: five days, three deaths. These attacks: four days, no deaths. I'm not seeing how the sniper attacks are relevant here. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give the deletion requests a rest. It is notable, as there are reliable sources available on the topic, a lower threshold than most editors are aware of. Renew the deletion discussion in a month or two.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this has multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources and is also a unique disaster.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you ever read the relevant guideline, at WP:KEEP? Are you going to argue, for instance, that "the nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption"? Or is this what I think it is, a hollow cry not based on any knowledge at all about our policies and guidelines, starting with WP:AGF? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't appreciate your unprofessional and inaccurate response, and I am going to disengage from further direct communication with you on any and all matters.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I don't appreciate your incorrect use of WP:KEEP and your suggestion (just read it) that the nomination was an act of vandalism or that the nominator was banned. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's maybe best to keep it shut. And if you are called on a pretty grievous error, you could try apologizing instead of whining about "unprofessional" stuff. In fact, as everyone knows, you were incorrect. Read up, kid, before you start throwing policy around. You're not on the playground anymore, and you have made a pretty serious accusation against the nominator. Or you're just ignorant. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drmies, I understand that you feel passionately about this article's deletion (and you have made many good arguments supporting your position) but I urge you to be a little more civil in your remarks. By the way, as of now no one has countered my keep argument (specifically my rebuttal) found above, perhaps you would give your opinion on the logic of my argument and the rebuttal I made defending it. Thanks and I await your comments, Magister Scientatalk 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess you'll be refactoring this soon, since I haven't commented on whether this should be kept or not. And if you would read WP:KEEP, you would see that calling for a speedy keep means the person calling for it is claiming that the nominator is disruptive and/or a vandal. Shall we take a quick stroll through that guideline? 1. The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. This is not the case here. 2. The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. Well. 3. The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. The nominator is not banned. 4. The page is a policy or guideline. Not applicable. 5. The article is currently linked from the Main Page. Not applicable. So, the only conclusion I can draw is that LuciferWildcat is claiming that the nomination is vandalism or disruption, and that, in this case, suggests a lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about taking a breath here, Drmies, before firing accusations of bad faith. An editor who apparently joined less than two months ago said "Speedy Keep" when he or she should have said "Strong Keep." Is this error really such an outrage? Who did this editor seriously inconvenience with this error? In contrast with, say, the sponsor of this deletion request, who, to take one example, requested a Speedy Delete of Alexey Pivovarov within less than 10 minutes of that article's creation last week. Instead of being able to build that article, editors had to deal with with Mtking's multiple deletion demands. Look at the article now that it's had a few days to develop and it's unquestionably notable, with the implication being that Mtking's attacks on the page right out of the gate amounted to editor harassment. In terms of the formal rules, he's within his rights, of course, but in terms of the project in my view it's unhelpful. All this to say that let's be pragmatic here and focus our fire on those who are interfering with Wikipedia's development, which LuciferWildcat doesn't seem to be doing since the "Speedy" of his "Speedy Keep" opinion can be readily ignored or discounted. Closing admins know, or should know, the rules for Speedy Keep anyway such that I don't think there is any serious danger of a "speedy keep" being applied here. The same can't be said of the deletionists since their AfD requests cannot be ignored, they essentially demand a response.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people who have a clue should start throwing terms around they don't understand. The above user doesn't know what "speedy keep" means or what user talk pages are for, and the first person who jumps to their defense claims I have made good arguments to delete this article--which of course I haven't. So if you want to tell me to take a deep breath, you may; if you tell other editors here to start reading before they type, that might be more helpful. I suggest you also have a look at Lucifer's talk pages and interactions with seasoned editors: I am not the only one who has remarked on their word choice and lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines. Being a newbie is one thing, but it should come with a certain amount of modesty and a willingness to know the rules. Frankly, I'm tired of these AfD discussions dominated by people who can't tell GNG, for instance, from a hole in the ground. Can I exhale now? Drmies (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I clarified on my talkpage, I accidentally mixed up Dori and Drmies (I was very tired) in my earlier comment. I apologize for the confusion but I don't think my mistake has any gravity on the outcome of this discussion. Magister Scientatalk 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you Magister. I'm keeping my arguments out of this--I think we have a case of WP:NOTNEWS here, but the amount of coverage (and the recentism so popular among Wikipedia editors) will probably ensure that this is kept. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well for my part I'm "tired of these AfD discussions" that include so much repetition, if the AfD is even necessary in the first place. Mtking keeps repeating "historical significance" when one mention should not only be enough, but would allow for others to make a single response to that view. It would allow for a shorter and more representative discussion. In this case, you made your point with your first response when you pointed to WP:KEEP. Your second response just repeated the argument and accordingly added nothing substantive to this AfD discussion, in my view, such that this response could have and should have gone to the user's personal page. What's previously been posted to user talk pages is frankly off topic, what would be on topic is the arguments you say you are "keeping... out of this." re the "rules", these are meant to avoid repeated arguments over the same issues in AfDs, they were not brought down to us by the gods, such that intimate familiarity with them makes one some sort of Wikipedia ayatollah.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I can assure you that it happened in the US was not relevant, what is of relevance is the total lack of sourcing to demonstrate any historical significance to this event, it is a news story about a crime in which there was no deaths and no injuries, it got hyped up coverage only due to the slow news window between Christmas and New Year and the ever so sexy (as far as the media are concerned) illegal immigration issues.Mtking (edits) 06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typical Wikipedia anti-Americanism. If it happened in the US, it doesn't matter, only if it happened in some other country. I've already mentioned the wildfires in Chile being significant, with little in the way of damages, and yet there's no question about that staying around. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/us/los-angeles-car-firebombings-set-city-on-edge.html
...Los Angeles is enduring its worst fires since the riots of 1992.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/la-arson-fires-most-since-1992-riots.html
...the wave of intentional blazes that started in Hollywood on Friday is the worst since the 1992 riots, officials said.
Enema For All (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Enema For All (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. Wifione Message 09:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

32830

edit
32830 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is currently a disambiguation page. However, there are no ambiguous article titles in Wikipedia for 32830. It is, however, a valid ZIP code for Lake Buena Vista, Florida, and these pages link to 32380. Senator2029 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lenticel (talk) 06:10, 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 redirect to Spice Networks. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private Spice

edit
Private Spice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only links in the article are the official website and an unreliable source. I also can't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 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 redirect to Damascus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shami

edit
Al-Shami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero refs. Tagged for that for well over three years. Also an orphan. Appears to be OR. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 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. Wifione Message 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalu

edit
Bangalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since June. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 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 speedy close no reason given for taking this to AfD. Will restore BLP prod tag on article. Safiel (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Wilkerson

edit
Kenny Wilkerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zzaffuto118 (talk) 02:02, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Frazier

edit
Glenn Frazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this person notable? Zzaffuto118 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 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 merge to Midseason replacement. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of shows that started as midseason replacements

edit
List of shows that started as midseason replacements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Could be merged Zzaffuto118 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article was split from Midseason replacement (see prv versions), I don't know why. Mattg82 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Lack of sources in the article, and no specific timeline of where "midseason" is defined (which could easily be interpreted as a replacement for a one-and-done dud which was followed by a new show replacing it in November like Rock Center for The Playboy Club). Also this is confined to only the last few years; imagine the list nightmare if we went back to 1947 on this. Nate • (chatter) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Midseason replacement. Concept seems to be notable. Of course recent years of TV are going to be much more extensively covered than earlier ones. But that really has nothing to do with keeping this article or not. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it back into Midseason replacement, currently a stub that could use some "beefing up". There are a few sources in the article, and I am sure more can be found. The term "midseason replacement" has a discrete definition in the industry (specifically defined in the article Midseason replacement). The fact that a list is impossible to complete or open-ended is an argument to avoid, I'm sure of it, I just can't find the policy or (more likely) essay that mentions it. And if it's not a policy or essay, then I'll go write an essay about it. :) Livit⇑Eh?/What? 03:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back per above; there's no need to split such a short definition from this list. That a show started as a midseason replacement is something often mentioned and compared in TV criticism and analysis.[17],[18],[19] If reliable sources identify it as such, then it qualifies, contra Nate's concern about a lack of definition (people really need to do research to understand an unfamiliar topic instead of assuming that their personal lack of knowledge reflects anything more than just that).[20] The nom should also be admonished for bringing this here instead of merging himself, per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 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. Wifione Message 09:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting News All-America quarterbacks

edit
Sporting News All-America quarterbacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Abandoned article (WP:KITTENS) that has questionable notability to begin with (WP:GNG). Furthermore, this is a redundant list because these players are listed on every article here. Breaking down yearly All-Americans by position articles is a slippery slope. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:21, 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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

edit
AfDs for this article:
How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

aprock (talk) suggests [21] that this article should be deleted because of issues related to notability and because it is a POV fork. Yfever (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I nominated this article at Aprock's suggestion, but my personal opinion is that this article should be kept. (Full disclosure: I have added a majority of the content to the article.) Aprock raises two issues: Notability and POV fork. With regard to notability, I have (after Aprock's comment) added a reliable source to the article which notes, correctly in my view, that the article is "the most controversial article in the history of American psychology." As the many references that I have added substantiate, there is no doubt that this was a hugely controversial article. (My personal opinion is that the article was flawed as well, but I don't think that truth/falseness enters into a judgment about notability.) With regard to a POV fork, I don't really understand that complaint. I can see that the topic of race/IQ/Jensen is a contentious topic at Wikipedia. But my purpose in creating this article is simply to create this article. I don't see it as a fork from anything else. And I would certainly love it if other people would contribute to the article as well! If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article, assuming it is kept, please let me know on the talk page. Yfever (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—At a superficial level, based on the references, this article appears to satisfy the notability requirements. If this is a PoV fork, where is it a fork from? It looks to be an orphan. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "replicating content"? At least 9 of the 15 citations in the article do not appear in those other two article sections. Those are all new reliable sources that I found and added. Assuming that the article is kept, I am happy to add more "substantive discussion of this controversy" but the lack of such a discussion currently does not strike me as a reason to delete. (But, to be clear, I don't have any experience with this process.) Yfever (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this comes down to how you feel about the previous AfD. If you disagree with it, I can see why you might want to rehash the entire discussion again. As it stands, there is no need to fork this content off into a separate article. The coverage of the book in the main articles is more complete and in a better context. aprock (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that feelings about the previous AfD might play a big part here. I read through it, but then got lost in some of the related (endless) fighting/sniping on various other pages. Quite a battle! So, I can't say that I really agree or disagree with the previous discussion. I don't really care about it. I just want to write a good article. One other comment: isn't it a sign that we need a separate article that this topic has extensive coverage in (at least) two other places, as your links demonstrate? That is, it makes sense (to me) to create a single good article and then provide links to it from anywhere that makes sense. That is how I see articles like Flynn Effect working, but maybe I don't understand the reasoning here. In any event, I appreciate your comments. Yfever (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tend to agree with Yfever that because this piece of writing itself is controversial in nature in the field that it merits its own article. It sounds like Yfever is committed to working on this. I am not terribly familiar with the topic, but if it can in any way be claimed that the article is "the most controversial article in the history of American psychology" readers would only be served by there being a comprehensive wikipedia article about it. --MLKLewis (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arthur Jensen#IQ and academic achievement. No need to fork information about this to a separate article, and the treatment in the Jensen article is fuller than that in this article. Only if the information in Arthur Jensen becomes so extensive as to overwhelm that article should a split be necessary. (Note that I can't see the previous article deleted via AfD.) Deor (talk) 23:55, 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) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems like the obvious solution. I would not have a problem with a "keep". It's a page that seems unnecessary more than anything. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Famous article, not merely notable. Hundreds of papers discussing it. Can't see why it's unnecessary--sometimes a scientific paper by itself is notable. It's more than the most controversial paper in the history of American psychology--it's the most controversial one in psychology ever. When something is famous enough, it gets a separate article. Isn't that what the entire principle of Notability is about? Merging this into Jensen is like merging Hamlet into Shakespeare. It could be done, but it shows an unawareness of appropriate emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:22, 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. For the record, the person recreating the article was informed of both this discussion and the incubated article some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C-Real (band)

edit
AfDs for this article:
C-Real (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Re-creation of a page incubated on 11 December 2011. This version has much less content and fewer refs than the deleted version. No new claims to notability and fails WP:BAND  Velella  Velella Talk   10:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can't this article be speedily deleted using reason A10? Personally I was unaware until now that articles can be incubated and I expect the author of this duplicate is also ignorant of the incubation procedure. They could be pointed towards the incubated article and asked to expand it. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:01, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 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 no consensus. Wifione Message 09:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption (Useless ID album)

edit
Redemption (Useless ID album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no independent notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 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, v/r - TP 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 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. Wifione Message 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chunk! No, Captain Chunk

edit
Chunk! No, Captain Chunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no notability shown for this band. touring lacks coverage. releases fall short of two albums on an important label. sourced by facebook, lastfm and passing mentions. band lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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, v/r - TP 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Dobrečić

edit
Nikola Dobrečić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

machine translation of sr WP article (CSD A2 plus bad machine translation) Steinhfer (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this a reason for deletion? If so, why wasn't is speedily deleted? But the subject is obviously notable. StAnselm (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copying a foreign language WP article to the en WP is speedy. Running a foreign language WP article through Google translate and copy it then to the en WP is not speedy deletion, but equally useless. --Steinhfer (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce to stub. An archbishop is clearly notable enough for an article, but the machine-translated rubbish which forms the bulk of the article should be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does need clean up and citation to sources, but those are available, I've provided one citation. There is no reason why, with work, it cannot become a reasonable article. Sadly, I can't work on it today. --Bejnar (talk) 23:46, 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. Wifione Message 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proprioceptive language learning method

edit
Proprioceptive language learning method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't look like a real language-learning method. I have never heard of it outside Wikipedia, and I can only find mirror sites and self-published books that mention it. Of the references in the article, only one makes the claim that the proprioceptive language-learning method is actually a language-learning method, and that is a self-published book by Lundquist. You can find the text of it here - note that much space is spent promoting Lundquist's English lessons. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable WP:OR. Most of the cited sources relate to speech pathology or to language learning generally, not to this method. Lundquist, Learning Spoken English, appears to be an exception. I wonder whether the undated "public ___domain" work is un-reviewed, possibly student work. Not that such work is necessarily suspect, but it should be supported by additional, reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that this topic, under any of its names, meets our notability criteria.  --Lambiam 16:48, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted as G7 (non-admin closure) Pol430 talk to me 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSHint

edit
JSHint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails the general notability criteria. It has twenty-five references, but none of them are reliable - they're all blogs, links to Github, and so on. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 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. Wifione Message 08:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyFavoriteReview

edit
MyFavoriteReview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill review website, non-notable. Buggie111 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's just nothing out there to show that this is a notable site. There's no reliable sources proving notability. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and we cannot keep a page just to "stick it" to the bigger review sites. Believe it or not, Rotten Tomatoes started off as a project by one person and was a "little guy" at one point in time. The only reason they got big was because they got lucky when someone reported on them. Wikipedia is not to be used as a way to promote your site. There is no personal vendetta against your site and we're not here to promote anyone. The site just does not have notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for promoting site. (and a note for whoever wrote that article: you made a valid point right there but unfortunately Wikipedia is not a cross section of society. Yep you are right, it is basically only for famous or in other words notable subjects).Trongphu (talk) 04:30, 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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Tiwari

edit
Manoj Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains potentially libelous *and* exaggerated information in all sections. Noopur28 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that is not a reason to delete. Fix the information that you consider to be inappropriate. Without having trawled through all the citations yet, I note that there are plenty of them. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the problem, rewrite it. However, this page has been lying around like this for a long time. I may have been harsh and am probably not the best person to write this article but it does present an extremely skewed picture. Fix it if you are contesting it. Noopur28 (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to the article talk page and explain what you perceived to be skewed and I will fix it for you. Right now, after a quick run-through, it does appear that the statements are supported by the sources. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 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.
  1. ^ "Philippines activates 15 weather stations donated by Taiwan". Wantchinatimes.com (English news website of the Taiwan based China Times News Group). September 17, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Launching of Automated Weather Station". Philippines Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. June 30, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ Barrameda, Shiena M. "Naga City's iTyphoon launched". City Government of Naga (Philippines). Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ Taylor, Chris. "UltraMon 2.1". Product Review. Ottawa PC Users' Group. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
  5. ^ Hanselman, Scott (2009-12-31). "The (Near) Final Word on Multi-Monitor Taskbars for Windows 7 - Ultramon vs. DisplayFusion". Retrieved 2012-01-05.
  6. ^ Steen, Greg (April 2008). "Toolbox". TechNet. Microsoft. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
  7. ^ "SolutionBase: Add invaluable functionality to a multiple monitor setup with UltraMon". TechRepublic. 2004-06-22. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
  8. ^ Castle, Alex (2008-10-20). "Beyond Ultramon: Free Software Solutions for Multiple Monitors". Maximum PC. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
  9. ^ Bhatnagar, Abhishek (2009-04-28). "UltraMon – The Best Smart Application For Multi Monitor Setup". technixupdate. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_5&oldid=1142635099"