Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 January	7 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike MacKinnon

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

This BLP of a radio (pirate) dj has zero refs. I cannot find substantial independent RS coverage of him. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in any way. Vincelord (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources with respect to his activity as a pirate radio DJ. As an author, I did find some local coverage in the form of a BBC Norfolk interview and this Lincolnshire paper. However, that's not enough for me to say the person is has met Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thrifty Beatnik

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

Not notable despite some TV coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, likely vanity. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This online business sells used ('vintage') clothes. They were apparently featured on TV once. No showing of the sort of enduring significance that gets a business into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Podlab

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The one independent reference in the article just quotes and employee of Podlab. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability.--Michig (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royston, Texas

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

Copyright violation. Entire article consists of a copy and paste from Handbook of Texas Online. Maile66 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify (already done). Inclusion in the Handbook shows it's notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source the nom states the content was copy violation of. Copyright violations is a matter of editing, not for AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's no longer a copyvio, and the topic is notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject crosses the notability and verifiability thresholds. Copyright violation (since resolved) is a reason for tagging and cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Maintenance

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

Won an award but does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. This calls itself a property maintenance and refurbishment company operating across the domestic and commercial sectors. The incidental mention in the only source that looks independent[1] suggests that what they actually do is plumbing. This is borderline vandalism. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you won't be too impressed with the other two articles started by the editor who created this one, either.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of encyclopedic notability.--Michig (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Mazzr

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

This DJ does exist, but from what I can find lacks the substantial, non-trivial RS coverage that is required to meet our notability standards. Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the bulk of the article which had been cut and pasted from elsewhere - the exact same text appears on his facebook page, etc. I did find a few things: this lists him on a judging panel for 'War of DJs in Chennai', this gives him a brief mention, and this looks distinctly like a reprinted press release. Insufficient independent coverage to support an article.--Michig (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sammons (broadcaster)

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

Article about a radio traffic presenter. Mostly unsourced article, and the subject lacks (from what I can tell) substantial, non-trivial independent RS coverage that would indicate his notability. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a traffic reporter? Really? Fails WP:BIO. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Yes there are hits on the name but he shares his name with an athlete and some other Greg Sammonses as well. RadioFan (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be fair he's not just a traffic reporter, also has his own show (albeit on a local community station). Not enough to meet WP:BIO though by any stretch. waggers (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the creator has significant traffic problems? I just noticed he also was the creator of the article Helen Blaby.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. -- Trevj (talk) 11:00, 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) 08:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Econsultancy

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

Company does not appear to be notable. Article is advertising. Large following on Twitter but I don't think that is enough. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, although in a few years' growth it may rise to notability. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little skeptical of the sources on the article. Three of them were links to the company's twitter, facebook, and web page. The web page entry went directly to a "sign up with our service now" link. The award sounds promising, but the link stating the award ([2]) appears to be a press release, if I'm not mistaken. I'm also a little concerned with the reliablility of the various links. This link ([3]) goes to a site that specializes in online PR, so I don't really see where it's a reliable source. I've got a funny feeling that the story was specially written by this site by the request of Econsultancy. That the article doesn't even bother capitalizing the company's name correctly doesn't exactly scream reliability to me. The other links are either brief mentions and/or to sites that are of dubious reliability. I'm going to do a search, but this just doesn't exactly sound like a notable company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Weak delete. I'm seeing a lot of brief mentions, but not anything truly in depth. Most of the news hits come up with the website's own blog and many of the citations for the company are either press releases or from sites that I'm not sure how reliable they are. Despite my earlier misgivings, I can see this potentially becoming notable in a few years but it just isn't notable enough in the here and now. If anyone can show how the award won is notable, I'm willing to change my mind, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. Another company providing training, reports, research, case studies, buyers guides and advice for the digital marketing sector advertising on Wikipedia. Minor trade awards do not make a case for notability]]. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:KEEP #1 (non-admin closure). No argument advanced for deletion, and AfD is not the place to resolve the sort of notability discussion that is at Talk:Shiz#"Religious text" question. St Anselm (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shiz

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

Does the article meet notability standards? John Foxe (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Herzog

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

Fails WP:GNG. Many references but almost all are tabloid-type rags. The article was apparently written and almost exclusively edited by one editor (probably the subject). It reads like an advertisement for the subject and his company. Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The piece has been edited by a number of people, none of which actually know the subject (to my knowledge). He is a noteworthy figure, hence the reason I chose to do an article on him. The dilemma is he seems to severely limit his interaction with the press. I've asked if anyone on here can assist in making it read less like an advertisement, but only one individual has yet to try and help. --Aad351 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your brief edit history and your comments are unusual. It's odd that a journalism student would pick this particular person to write an article about. And I have no direct evidence that you are the subject or know the subject. Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. However, your statement that "he seems to severely limit his interaction with the press" is directly at odds with his website. Indeed, he seems to crave publicity. I don't know whom you've asked to improve the article, but I can tell you that I wouldn't be interested because, as is obvious from my nomination, I don't believe the article should even be here. Even if the consensus is to keep the article, or there is no consensus, which defaults to a keep, I wouldn't want to work on the article. Regardless, the community will have the final word (not me) on whether the subject is sufficiently notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you work on it? When I say "severely limits his interaction," I mean he doesn't speak much to most of the press, but clearly he's a notable figure. If you're not open to work on it, is there any suggestions you could make to help me fix it? It'd be appreciated. --Aad351 (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not relevant to this process, but how do you know "he doesn't speak much to most of the press"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 2 months researching Kris Herzog, the world he lives and works in is primarily reported on by media sources like TMZ and TMZ.com, CelebDirtyLaundry, LickAblecelebs.com, RadarOnline.com, etc.... I also included more mainstream ones like; Los Angeles CBS 2 / KCAL 9, People Magazine, US Weekly, Life and Style weekly and several others listed on my Wikipedia page, which combined have published over 247 stories about Herzog, his Book, My True Hollywood Story and/or his company, The Bodyguard Group over the last 4 years.

As for Independent, since over 50% of the stories on TMZ and TMZ.com do NOT show Herzog in a good light, I would say they those are as Independent as you get.

The 21 Independent and verifiable sources I list include several national news media outlets like: Los Angeles CBS 2 / KCal 9 which have aired 2 News Anchor Sharon Tay in depth news investigations about Herzog (re Mel Gibson) for a total of over 10 minutes of air time, it was then re run nationally and internationally.

Herzog has been the central figure in over a dozen national and international news stories in just the last 4 years and that is far more than thousands of others who currently have pages on Wikipedia.

Herzog owns the only company in the United States that gets jobs for free for U.S. Navy SEAL team members and others.

Herzog was a key and central figure in some of the biggest news stories of 2009, 2010, 2011, Mel Gibson and Herman Cain.

Herzog's story is noteworthy and as 50% or more of the news stories I have sighted DO NOT paint him in a good light, this is clearly* NOT** self promotion, advertising or an auto biography.

**TMZ calls him a convicted felon who likes to impersonate cops, etc....

When you Google search: 1. Kris Herzog, 2. Kristian Herzog or 3. Kris Herzog Book, you get millions of results and Herzog has a higher standing and more noteworthiness than thousands of *people that currently have Wikipedia pages.

Like his contemporary Gavin De Becker. who currently has a Wikipedia page.

I have never met or spoken to him and only started this project to learn about Journalism and Wikipedia.

Amanda, NYC Student — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Kris Herzog" (with the quotes) returned 8,260 Google hits for me. "Kristian Herzog" returned 8,080. Without the quotes 'Kris Herzog' returns 1,700,000 hits - and 'kris herzog spam' returns 888,000. Google search results indicate nothing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notatility not found in a reliable source. Ariconte (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even taking all stated claims as true, I don't know why we would have an article on him. Would need something notable or newsworthy. Being allegedly employed by someone notable doesn't make one notable. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:BASIC requirements of non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not going to lie but i think the author of this article and the subject are the same person. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting publicity. Plus per above.Trongphu (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - non-notable per WP:BIO and a vanitybio. ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; tabloid-sourced and unverifiable by our standards. This disgusting dishonesty by the article's creator removes all doubt. (Note that she had previously removed the delete comments.) Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speedy if possible Given the actions of the article creator, and given that this looks like a foregone conclusion, I'd suggest that the best thing will be for an admin to step in and close before we have any more trouble? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 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 redirect per plenty of precedent and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Community School

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

K-6 school. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to muni, ensuring the school name is on the muni page. tedder (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Van Nuys, Los Angeles#Education where the school is already listed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, and merge any useful content per usual practice. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world).Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, this definitely is a minority viewpoint of yours, and it is contradicted by the Wikipedia consensus expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, as you have been told repeatedly. You keep arguing this "all schools are notable" viewpoint even though numerous editors have asked you to stop it. Pasting a lengthy and sometimes inapplicable generic comment into every school discussion does nothing to further the aims of Wikipedia - or your reputation. (Inapplicable because your comment says "diocesan", but this is not a Catholic school.) The argument that "all schools have sources, you just have to look" has been accepted by the Wikipedia community as true for high schools, but not for primary or middle schools. And that is in line with my experience. I always search for sources before recommending a school article for redirect, but it is very rare that I find any news of substance about a primary or middle school. BTW "redirect" is the standard outcome; such schools are almost never deleted outright. "Prod" would be inappropriate because that would result in a deletion rather than a redirect.--MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucifer -- I agree with Melanie that your oft-repeated comment has been an oft-rejected one, and does not comport with wp consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the closing administrator will know how to judge this evaluation. Epeefleche, I'm not you, so I don't have to take offense at this denial of good faith, "there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination". Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies -- well, yes, I did have that reaction. But I thought that the overwhelming rejection of the accuser's assertions that this article should be a keep might be embarrassing enough for him that I didn't have to myself rub his nose in it any further. I did also find it a bit bizarre that he suggested that the outcome here is so clear that this article should have been PRODed, while the accuser's !vote suggests that had he seen such a PROD he would have removed it. All in all, his comments themselves do more to help a closer evaluate them than any retort by me could have. I do, of course, appreciate you and others in the community speaking up, as that may help keep conversation at these AfDs at a more civil level, with fewer ad hominem attacks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figure that you, as an executive of a "mass act of deletionist ideology", might do with a non-templated comment of support. Also, I think you should be redirected to the article of your diocese. Ahem. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not pass the GNG, such schools not inherently notable, etc. I have no objection in principle to a redirect, of course. They're cheap, as DGG used to say. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 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, based on improvements by User:Hjal.--Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Oak School

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

K-8 school. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to muni, ensuring the school name is on the muni page. tedder (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Napa, California. (Changing to Keep, see below} I thought the school might be notable because it is in a historic building, but Google Books barely mentioned it and Google News has only routine local coverage. (Why do I get the feeling I am the only one doing any actual evaluation of the schools in this series of nominations?) --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short because there are two competing approaches here — one attempting to use a simple rule-of-thumb akin to the way we treat villages and non-notable hamlets (which, if correct, means there should probably be a "Speedy Deletion" process for obviously non-notable elementary schools in lieu of AfD), and a second which feels that every school article should be examined in the light of GNG. I'm fine with rubberstamping elementary schools "out" and secondary schools "in," with the benefit that a nearly infinite bogging down at AfD is averted and casual participation at AfD is possible. I feel positive that the sheer number of articles that will be coming to the abattoir will far exceed the energy of the tiny handful of volunteers who actually care to do proper investigation of sources, but if that's what the community actually wants, that's what it should have. If standing practice is out of step with consensus, then let's come up with a new set of practices and I will try to take enjoyment watching the black ants and the red ants fight over 100,000 stub articles on schools. I doubt too many have actually thought through the implications of this question, including, for what it's worth, Jimmy Wales. There really does need to be a binding RfC on this question. I'm tired of wasting my time and energy having to explain and defend standard practice on schools pieces, let's settle this. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, but blank and merge any useful content per usual practice. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect/Merge~~ to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hjal's contributions below. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every public school is encyclopedic, including elementary schools, because of our function as a gazetteer. I agree that elementary schools would often fit best into an annotated list or table in the article for a school district or community. However, this school turns out to be "notable," both in the WP:N sense of having been covered in WP:RSs and in the common sense of being worthy of note. The building is historic, by California standards in any case, and its restoration won a local preservation award. During the restoration, the HVAC system was replaced with the first geothermal heat pump system in a California school. Every change in the head of school since 2002 has received coverage in the local daily newspaper. This is all referenced in my current edit. The article is now too long to be merged, although an abbreviated version could still be included in a list of elementary schools at Napa, California. Since it is a private school,there is no district article to list it in.--Hjal (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my recommendation to Keep based on the improvements to the article by Hjal. I noted that the building could be historic, but my search did not turn up the evidence. Hjal's did and it is enough for a keep. I am less impressed by the local paper's coverage of changes in the school's administration, but the recognized historic building makes the school notable. Good work, Hjal. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Napa, California The RSes provided have trivial coverage of the school itself. I am not moved by the run-of-the-mill news coverage when the headmaster changes. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. Guerillero | My Talk 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Simon and Jude Catholic School

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

Elementary school. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Zero refs,. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to muni, ensuring the school name is on the muni page. tedder (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. Seriously, Epeefleche, it seems like you ought to have at least figured out the redirects on these nominations! --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect, but that is not my initial proposal. And if the consensus is to redirect, I'm generally fine with whatever the consensus is as to the target -- if not, I will speak up. I see that you and Tedder have different views as to the redirect target, but I imagine that if redirect ends up being the consensus the community will sort that out; I've no strong feelings as to whether to redirect to the muni or the dioscese.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no such action as "delete with redirect" per your initial proposal. Redirect leaves a redirect page, and is different from deletion which does not. Redirect can be done boldly, especially in the case of elementary/middle schools where it is supported by Wikipedia consensus. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD." --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a delete. And believe that the stand-alone article should be deleted, whether or not there is a redirect, and whether or not there is a merge. As an alternative to delete (and nothing more), I would accept a redirect. I've seen fair share of controversy at these AfDs, over the last 150 or so. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearwood Primary School (2nd nomination). So this is not a situation in which I would like to myself redirect an article, as have a dozen editors have spoken out this week against anything other than a keep, and there is not a consensus as to whether to proceed with delete/redirect/merge as far as I can tell -- though there is a consensus that stand-alone articles on these schools should generally be erased as such. There is also controversy as to whether schools through grades 10 and 11 should be treated as we treat lower-level schools or as we treat high schools through grade 12. Building consensus, and reflecting it in a guideline, would be the best course IMHO. In the interim, if there are any AfDs that are clear as to the result, they can always be SNOWed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are just differing over terminology. I think what you are calling "delete with redirect" is what I would call "redirect" (which includes blanking the article so all the content is deleted). That seems to be what is usually done with primary and middle schools, rather than outright deletion - although I have sometimes advocated outright deletion when the name of the school was not unique. In a recent discussion here I advocated deletion because the school was closed, but I honestly don't know if that is in line with policy or not. We'll see. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While some editors assert convention is to redirect, the most recent 150 or so closes here have been somewhat split. A good number have been delete, though I would guess the majority have been redirect, and only a very few have been "keep" (we have one being considered right now that appears to be heading towards a keep). The only clear consensus I've seen is that in general the stand-alone article should be deleted -- whether the title is redirected, and whether text is merged, seems not to attract as clear a consensus. A guideline might help clarify matters. My main interest is in enforcing the clear part of the consensus -- that the stand-alone not end up being a stand-alone -- but whether it ends up being a delete, a redirect, or a merge ... and the target of the merge ... is something I don't have a strong feeling about in the normal case. It would help streamline the process if some of these were closed as SNOWs, however, if a consensus is clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is flooding AfD with primary school nominations. You have, at the moment, ~45 open AfD's on schools! With that happening, how do you expect people to pay attention to every single one? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply suggesting to the community, as to articles on which I perform a wp:before search, that my view is that I understand that (in those cases) the consensus position on such schools is to delete them, or redirect them if the community deems that preferable. Nobody is required to pay attention to every AfD, let alone every one. But clearly the AfDs have in general attracted sufficient attention for a close. And in the vast majority of the closes, the view has been that the article should not be allowed to continue to stand as a stand-alone article. I understand that your view in many of these AfDs has been a non-consensus one to keep the article. But that should not lead you to attack me as you have. IMHO. Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what the target is, but I do prefer a merge/redirect over a delete in cases where the name is (or should be) on another page, which should be true of almost all primary schools. tedder (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both "delete and redirect" and "redirect" are legitimate recommendations in an AfD and legitimate outcome. In the case of an article such as this one, where the existing content is not particularly notable but not problematic either, a plain "redirect" would be fine -- the page would be changed to a redirect but the edit history would be preserved. On the other hand, suppose someone created a page titled Joe R. Biden Jr., with the following content: "Joe R. Biden Jr. is the Vice President of the United States. He is a big jerk and a dummy and he smells bad too!!!" In that case, it would be appropriate to delete the page and then redirect it to Joe Biden, because the edit history would not be worth preserving. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, but blank and merge any useful content to per usual practice. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are blanked and redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 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 redirect to Saint Leo the Great Parish. Consensus is to redirect, but people disagree about where to. I'm choosing one of the two possibilities, but that may be changed editorially as desired. Sandstein 09:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Leo the Great School (California)

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

Elementary school. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Zero refs. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention to Saint Leo the Great Parish where it is already mentioned with equivalent content; and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to locality or school authority, as suggested above by Kudpung. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California. I am recommending the diocese rather than the parish, because the parish article looks like a candidate for deletion as non-notable, whereas diocese articles are usually kept. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint Leo the Great Parish per Kudpung. Melanie, in my opinion discusson on the parish should happen there, which would involve merging anything relevant from it up to the diocese. tedder (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, tedder. I was wondering, because based on a template at the parish article, it looks as if someone has created a separate article for every parish in this diocese. Most of these articles are mere unsourced stubs, although a few look more substantial. I think most should be redirected to the diocese article. Should I start redirect discussions, then? --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or just boldly merge/redirect them. If anyone reverts, open AFD. That'll keep AFD from getting overburdened with them. tedder (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about those options. I note that all the articles were created by the same user in 2006 and have been minimally edited since then, so boldly merging/redirecting (with notice to interested parties) might be the way to go. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I posted a comment at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California, and I notified the author of the parish articles (although he/she has not been active lately). I'll let it ride for a week or two and if no one objects I will go ahead with the merges. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless matters change, as it stands now it appears that of those two options redirect would make more sense than merge, as the article text is all non-referenced, and challenged.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to diocese, just not enough content.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School (Covina, California)

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

K-8 school. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Zero refs. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to muni, ensuring the school name is on the muni page. tedder (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Sigh. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, but blank and merge any useful content to per usual practice. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are blanked and redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unfortunately there is not enough content for a standalone article at this time so merge to the next division up, LA diocese is it?LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:00, 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. I am reverting my mistake in reading the concencus per Epeefleche's post on my talk page Guerillero | My Talk 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mater Dolorosa Catholic School (South San Francisco)

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

K-8 school Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, and may be (the article says it is) defunct. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect: per consensus that these type of schools are non-notable. Personally, I'd have just carried out the merge/redirect as there's a strong consensus that redirect to a city, parish, school district or diocese is the way to go, and redirects/mergers don't require consensus anyway Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for a redirect. Muni pages, with very few exceptions, only list open private primary schools. tedder (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search confirms the school is closed. (The appropriate redirect would have been to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco.) BTW I concur with Purplebackback that the appropriate action would have been to simply carry out these non-controversial redirects, rather than hauling them to AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-controversial? I've seen fair share of controversy at these AfDs, over the last 150 or so. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearwood Primary School (2nd nomination). And even here you and Purple have different views as to what should be done, as you suggested a delete and he suggested redirect (or redirect/merge), and from what I've seen we do not have a consistent consensus between those alternatives. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect PurpleBackPack did not notice that the school is closed. If it was an active school, my recommendation would have been the same as his. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that policy supports different treatment, based on whether the school is active or not. And btw -- to the extent that any AfD discussion is non-controversial, it can be snow closed ... perhaps we will see more of those. That would be a good turn of events.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a discussion of how to handle a closed primary/middle school - whether to redirect or delete. I will be interested to see what the conclusion is here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not the time to search for it, but do have a recollection of seeing a statement somewhere to the effect that the fact that a school (or organization) is closed is not a factor; the subject is either notable or not, based on existing RS refs et al, and notability is not contingent on future existence any more than a living person would be considered more notable than a dead one.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that is true when it comes to "delete or keep". But the discussion here is more about "delete or merge". In the latter decision, what is important is if any text belongs on wikipedia about this school. tedder (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't see merge as an option, as there is zero RS-sourced content in the article as it stands to even consider merging.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but WP:BEFORE says a search should be done before nomination; certainly there's enough to say it exists, which is what makes merge an option. tedder (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, were there any RS-sourced content to consider merging, it would have been an option.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have the "time" to put in an expected level of consideration before submitting an AfD but you have the time to submit this many AfD's? This is a problem. No wonder you're putting through nominations like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huaian_Foreign_Language_School where you didn't properly consider that the article needs a rewrite. You need to pay more attention. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, of course, is not what I said. Please stop putting words in my mouth, that I did not say. As top the AfDs, I've put in a high level of consideration, as borne out by the high level of community consensus on them. But the focus here is on this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you don't have time to search for procedures on how to deal with redirect/merge-ing school articles. I've also done a cursory look through your contributions, as I have previously stated, and I'm not seeing too many posts to school talk pages or rewriting of school articles. I'll assume good faith that you are searching for RS's, but you seem to have slipped at least once (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St_Joseph's_School,_Oamaru) and you've also proven in at least one other of your AfD's that you are considering the possibility that an article may be badly written (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huaian_Foreign_Language_School). AfD is the step in a process, not the one and only solution. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote precisely what I said.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No school, no sources, so nothing to keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As this school appears not to exist, a redirect would not be appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The school seems to exist [4]. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:11, 8 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment above that the school "seems to exist", and the webpage: I think that may be an obsolete webpage. The webpage for the parish says nothing about a school. I just called the phone number listed on your school webpage, and the recording which answers it is for this program: Mater Dolorosa - Faith Formation, Religious Education (CFF), Children & Youth, which appears to be a one-hour-a-week program of religious education. I suspect the article is correct and the K-8 school is closed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear for COI purposes, I'm not connected to the school at all in any way. In fact, I'm in a different country.

That being said, I don't understand who would still be paying for a website if the school is defunct. If the school is closed, then I'll add to my comment above a !vote of Redirect/Merge.

My comments regarding Epeefleche's not committing to any part of the deletion process (except for the "click XFD button") still stand and still of great concern to me. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the saying goes, nothing ever dies on the internet. In other words, the fact that we can see this webpage does not necessarily mean that it is an active page someone is paying for. Pages get mirrored and archived and waybacked - nothing is ever really quite gone. (Try looking up your own old address, or a restaurant that closed a year or two ago.) I'm more inclined to trust the phone message - and the fact that the (currently active) parish website doesn't mention a school. --MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Christians' Hour

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

Unreferenced article about a radio program that does not demonstrate the subject's notability. Indeed the claim of 5,000 listeners seems to actively demonstrate this subject is non-notable. Prod was contested without reason, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of importance here. Calabe 1992 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references, no notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont understand. need help. DON"T DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forums44 (talk • contribs) 6 January 2012

I've given Forums44 quite detailed help about finding reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If such sources can be provided, the article should be kept. Sparthorse (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indications of notability, no references. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~DONT DELETE~~
http://christianstandard.com/2008/08/interview-with-bill-mcclure/
http://www.poeministries.org/pages/Lectures/NACC-07.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=-3UtqrX56rgC&pg=PA623&dq=%22the+christians'+hour%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=8sIIT-zGO7GM4gTK4-CRCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20christians'%20hour%22&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=gqf5JCmoBugC&pg=PA477&dq=%22the+christians'+hour%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=8sIIT-zGO7GM4gTK4-CRCA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20christians'%20hour%22&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iSJTLDDg0XEC&pg=PA125&dq=%22the+christians'+hour%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=8sIIT-zGO7GM4gTK4-CRCA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22the%20christians'%20hour%22&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=HLMh1f9UPUMC&pg=PA50&dq=%22the+christians'+hour%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=8sIIT-zGO7GM4gTK4-CRCA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20christians'%20hour%22&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=orLnzk37nVgC&q=%22the+christians%27+hour%22&dq=%22the+christians%27+hour%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G8QIT__WNYOj-ga33tGvAQ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forums44 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Forums44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So fix it and include those sources per WP:INCITE. If you fear the article will be deleted before you can do this, I suggest taking a copy in your userspace to work on. -- Trevj (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think these sources above have anything to do with the article itself. Don't try to trick people.Trongphu (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please remember to assume good faith. - Dravecky (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not trickForums44 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i guess you not read them yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forums44 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Google Books sources listed above establishing verifiability and a degree of notability. Apparently a very long-running "pioneering" religious radio program with widespread coverage. The article, as it stands, is abysmal but cleanup is not a matter for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thankyouForums44 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Google Books sources listed above establishing verifiability and a degreeForums44 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)— Forums44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - please don't try to vote twice; you've already made your position known above. As to the sources provided, I don't believe they confer any notability - they just confirm existence. That is not the same thing as notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5,000 listeners?... Let us try after it has 50,000 or more. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- why 5000 is not enough????Forums44 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is a valid point, actually. WP:BIG and all that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. Forums44 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - more sourceForums44 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - http://www.newspaperarchive.com/SiteMap/FreePdfPreview.aspx?img=101833854
    - http://www.gospelbroadcastingmission.org/images/Interview.pdf
    - http://www.therestorationmovement.com/hoven.htm
Comment - can we get an admin to close this already? We've got a clear consensus to delete here, and it's two days past the date this should have been closed. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- almost delete votes before i show source now vote most keep Forums44 (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first google books source is good enough for me, since it is more then a passing mention in an independent reliable source. It can be supported by the more flimsy other sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
vote change to Delete Forums44 (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i reconsiderate to keep per the Google Books sources listed above establishing verifiability Forums44 (talk) 12:32, 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 Jism (film)#Sequels. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jism 2 (film)

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

unreleased in developmnet, semi-porn movie, with no references. fails WP:NFILM Gaijin42 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NFF. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Jism (film)#Sequels until such time as we have confirmation of filming or release. Lack of sources is an addressable issue, as we have plenty available dealing with pre-production and casting. This one is simply a little premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:14, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Jazz Archive

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

No evidence of notability. The references are blogspot, pages barely mentioning the archive, the organisation's own website... JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep More independent and reliable sources with significant coverage are needed for me to give a solid "Keep." Per the article, it is an accredited museum which has won an award for its displays.There appears to be some coverage in "Currency companion to music and dance in Australia" with the search snippet saying "Victorian Music Library, a subscription library, contains the largest collection in Australia of scores and parts available for loan to the general public. The Victorian Jazz Archive has a substantial collection relating to Australian ..." There are some mentions at Google News archive:[5], [6]. Threshold skimpy coverage. Edison (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per above.Trongphu (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fine work by Edison, but at the moment I'm uncertain as to whether it is enough to satisfy GNG. On the fence; perhaps other finds will sway me.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edison's research shows that it is possible to compile a decent article on the topic. We refer to the institution in multiple articles and an additional explanation is a good service to our readers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:00, 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 speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitesh

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

Article created on Noun. May not qualify. Thanks AKS (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep That is not a valid criteria for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid and useful disambiguation page Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Daniels

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

Article was PRODed, material was added, and PROD removed. IMHO this DJ remains non-notable under wp notability standards, and unlike the editor who removed the PROD I do not believe that the DJ is notable by virtue of having recorded a song that we deem notable (to be clear, it was not his recorded version of the song that was the notable one). Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Entertainer who created a notable lasting work with its own WP article; coverage specifically about Daniels found in third-party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- it is not his recording that was a hit and that meets Wikipedia:Notability (music), but that of another singer. Singing the same song. Which was itself written by notable composers. While the song and the composers and the singer who made it famous happen to be notable, I don't see how his having been the first person to record the song by itself makes him notable under our notability standards. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level of commercial success (which is itself a subjective concept) does not alone demonstrate notability or a lack therefore. Daniels' career both as a recording artist and DJ has combined, IMO, achieved a sufficient level of third-party coverage for this to be a Keep. The 'Good Guys' alone arguably justify a stand-alone article as well, as is clear from a quick search: [7]Rangoon11 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were suggesting that he is notable because he sang the song in question. And, actually, per our singer notability standard, one may be considered to be a notable singer if one has had a single on the US music chart. But that was not the case, best I can tell, with the version of the song that he recorded. That is the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure that I agree that his career as a DJ adds much, despite the additions to the article as to the fact that he is tall, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the song have gotten noticed and song by others if he hadn't done it first? How high on the billboard did it get when he song it? Dream Focus 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any answer would be pure conjecture. But the composers were the already famous Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. And it was the version recorded by Peggy Lee -- who was herself already famous -- that reached number 11 on the U.S. pop singles chart.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable per the WP:GNG, being the subject of independent, reliable sources. The subject is mostly notable as a DJ and that's fine - see category:Radio presenters for numerous other examples. Warden (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage for him being one of the good guys DJs is significant coverage. Dream Focus 23:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I see a well written shiort bio on a guy with multiple non-trivial coverage in RS.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clearly notable.Trongphu (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Per consensus view.--Epeefleche (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fountainhead Method

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

Promotional article based on primary sources. Could not find any independent secondary sources to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com.au/books/about/28_Days_to_Beat_the_Blues.html?id=j6LHbwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y book based on and describing the unique method known as the fountainhead method This is a unique educational based solution for depression and a real alternative. Gregjester (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended by the anti depression association of australia , a not for profit association to assist people with educational solutions for depression. http://adaa.org.au/ Gregjester (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a self-published book by people promoting this method is not an indication of notability. --RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book however is an indication and explanation of a unique concept and alternative solution to depression Gregjester (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I cannot agree that it is a promotionally article at all, the article has been edited multiple times and been rejected by editors until changes were made to make sure this is not the case, it is simply designed to show that an educational solution to depression and anxiety exists.Gregjester (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just going over the current references in the article:

- Mark Furner's letter appears to be some kind of testamonial and has no indication that it was ever published (or even that Mr. Furner actually wrote it).

-the ADAA appears to be some kind of lobby group. Either way, the references don't show that the letter was ever published or distributed, so I'm not sure it can be verified and used.

-the Couriermail article [8] looks promisingly reliable but it just describes the 'Fountainhead Health Resort', there's no mention of a 'Fountainhead Method'

-the ADAA submission to government appears to be typical lobbyist advocacy. It is at least verifiable that they send the letter to Australia's government (it's on the gov't website), but without knowing if the Fountainhead people are paying for their services, this reference is a little suspect also.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are all dubious and searching doesn't present any others that are more promising. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I still haven't been able to find better references than the ones in the article . . . and as described above, they're all pretty poor.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sharif Uddin Hyderabad

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

Unsourced article on apparently non-notable topic, created by blocked user. PROD removed with the rationale, "if sources existed, it would be notable" - but it appears that they don't. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for source-hunters: "Sharaf al-Din" is the more common spelling of "Sharif Uddin", not that it seems to help much. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No search results anywhere, and the creator has created many suspect pages before the user block. Zzarch (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. -- Trevj (talk) 11:12, 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) 08:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Name on Campus

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

Contested prod. Neologism with minimal claim to notability. This article is largely about a specific person who used this term. GabrielF (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't agree that it's a neologism, as it is quite a widely-used turn of phrase.[9] However, the article amounts to a dictionary definition, and so should be deleted per WP:DICTIONARY. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr. S. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who don't we move it to wiktionary?Trongphu (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly we could. We already have wikt:big-name, though, and I'm not sure that "big name on campus" would pass Wiktionary's inclusion criteria, because there are lots of phrases that include "big name on x", like "big name on Broadway", etc. Anyone with more experience over there care to comment? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without transwikiing. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. Angr (talk) 21:33, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 00:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maithili Rao

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

AKS (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Requested deletion but got bounced back by admins. Just because someone has citations does not make them notable. The author has not used the references properly to justify that this person has done anything deserving of this article.Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not satisfy the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO at this time. A search of Google Scholar finds a few publications but not enough to establish her as a leader in her field. Google News archive finds only an entertainment writer by the same name. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nominator: was it really necessary to request speedy-deletion of this article two minutes after it was created? [10] I personally hate to see that kind of hair-trigger response to a new article, without giving the creator any time at all to improve it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment refactored to proper ___location. Franamax (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to AKS & Zzaffuto118 - please check all the references, these are credible international journal references for physicians including NIH- most importantly they are notable and independent- this article absolutely should not be deleted. Also, new references were added. kballal1 (talk)

Dear kballal 1; please refrain from removing deletion and other maintenance tags from the article. Discussion is still open on this page. AKS (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another article by similar name Maithili Rao MD was created and it was deleted on 4th Jan 2012. AKS (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the previous article was speedily deleted as it contained no credible claim of importance. This article is not (eactly) the same, and now contains enough of a claim to importance that it should go through the normal AFD process. As a result, the previous deletion has no particualr bearing on this discussion. Franamax (talk) 06:22, 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 List of education facilities in San Antonio. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Sacrament Catholic School San Antonio, Texas

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

Usual rationale...K-8 school without a strong notability. Non-controversial, really. Could be merged to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Per what I understand is our convention with K-8 schools. Perhaps we can SNOW this?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have yet to walk into a school's office and not see at least a dozen framed newspaper articles that cover the school in depth. Those clearly meet the GNG and should be considered as per NRVE. Therefore it can only be assumed that all schools are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Melanie's comments on the two other Catholic school AfDs. In short...no it can't... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) tper nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:23, 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) 14:59, 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 redirect to Carmelite Sisters of the Most Sacred Heart of Los Angeles. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this schooll isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's School (La Puente, California)

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

Usual rationale...K-8 school without a strong notability. Non-controversial, really. Could be merged to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Per what I understand is our convention with K-8 schools. Perhaps we can SNOW this?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have yet to walk into a school's office and not see at least a dozen framed newspaper articles that cover the school in depth. Those clearly meet the GNG and should be considered as per NRVE. Therefore it can only be assumed that all schools are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines no point in redirect.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carmelite Sisters of the Most Sacred Heart of Los Angeles per usual practice. Luciferwildcat, please do not keep repeating this non-consensus-based claim of yours that all schools are notable. And please see my comments here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucifer -- what Melanie said.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carmelite Sisters of the Most Sacred Heart of Los Angeles per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second vote in this discussion, plz strike out one of them Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, I am striking out the word "keep" from in front of your comment. Anyone is welcome to comment more than once in a discussion (although please see my comments here, which apply to both times you made this identical argument in this discussion), but you can only !vote once. Again, that's the problem with cut-and-pasting the same comment into multiple discussions; you may include a "keep" or "diocesan" where it is not appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Archdiocese of Los Angeles#Schools. Guerillero | My Talk 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Martin of Tours Catholic School

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

Usual rationale...K-8 school without a strong notability. Non-controversial, really. Could be merged to Archdiocese of Los Angeles or the article on the parish church Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Per what I understand is our convention with k-8 schools. Perhaps we can SNOW this?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have yet to walk into a school's office and not see at least a dozen framed newspaper articles that cover the school in depth. Those clearly meet the GNG and should be considered as per NRVE. Therefore it can only be assumed that all schools are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our notability guidelines don't contemplate our keeping an article based on "I have yet to walk into a school's office and not see at least a dozen framed newspaper articles that cover the school in depth." And here, of course, we have the convention that has been mentioned in other AfDs in which both of us have participated.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. Userfy~~. The article is a bit more than a stub and, per what Luciferwildcat has said above, it's possible that the article could be expanded to demonstrate the school's notability. If you're stepping forward to get that done, Luciferwildcat, then I'd be happy to help however I can. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!vote withdrawn, was based on a misreading of another's comment. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Danjel, general consensus is that K-8 school articles, regardless of length, are non-notable. The "all schools are notable" argument is not based in policy, as Epeefleche notes. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the complete picture. If notability of a school can be demonstrated (as Luciferwildcat suggests), then it should be kept. I suggest that, if Luciferwildcat has intimate knowledge of the school, the article be usefied to him/her, and I'll help to expand it to meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talk • contribs)

Purple is correct. And -- despite your suggestion to the contrary -- we don't keep articles on the basis of RSs that could -- just maybe, possibly, "who knows?" -- exist. If that is the basis for your !vote, your !vote should be delete. You can always re-create the article when you have such RSs in hand, if they do in actuality exist. As to Lucifer having intimate knowledge of the school -- he suggested nothing of the sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The common outcome is NOT to delete, it is to merge nonnotable schools to their localities per WP:AfD/Common_outcomes#Schools. This has been mentioned to you before... This is a critically serious misunderstanding on your part and colours every single one of the 50 odd AfD's for school articles that you have created in the last however long.

Luciferwildcat mentioned that s/he has walked into the school building to see newspaper articles. If not him, then I'm sure someone else (i.e., the article creator) would be happy to take it back. Hence my suggestion that the article be USERFYed until this can be satisfied. I've struck through my keep above to make sure that this it is understood that this is my suggestion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think he said a school building, not this school building... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Fair enough. Then in that case, I'll withdraw my !vote. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dan, for sticking with us through the discussion. As to whether to delete or redirect in such circumstances, both the !votes and the closes at the last 150 or so AfDs of schools of this type have not reflected a consensus as to whether the articles should be redirected or merged or deleted. They have closed both ways. Where there has been a consensus is that as a general matter they should not be kept as stand-alone articles. Thanks again for sticking in the conversation, and reading others' comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. Martin of Tours Catholic Church - which does appear to be a notable church. However, I could not find any independent sourcing about the school to establish it as notable per Wikipedia criteria. These discussions are decided, not on the basis that there MIGHT be coverage or OUGHT to be coverage, but on what coverage can actually be found. In this case I found none, using several variations of the school's spelling and quoted phrases. "All schools are notable" as claimed by Luciferwildcat is contrary to Wikipedia consensus. Please understand that "notable" as used here is not a general synonym for "worthwhile"; it is not a value judgment about the subject. It is shorthand for the very precisely defined WP:NOTABILITY criteria for what makes something important enough to be included in this international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to parent No third party sources proofing notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) t per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second vote in this discussion, plz strike out one of them Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, I am striking out the word "keep" from in front of your comment. Anyone is welcome to comment more than once in a discussion (although please see my comments here, which apply to both times you made this identical argument in this discussion), but you can only !vote once. Again, that's the problem with cut-and-pasting the same comment into multiple discussions; you may include a "keep" or "diocesan" where it is not appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azzam Pasha quotation

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

Delete. This quote is not notable for a separate and unnecessary article. brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple WP:RS:s discuss this very subject. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abundant reliable sources referring to this subject (and one of the most useful little articles I've come across on Wikipedia). --NSH001 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article very clearly show notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching for "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre" Pasha in Google books indicates that it is very notable. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any outsider looking at the voting at this afd please note that all the above !voters are ~~heavy partisans~~ [involved] in the A-I conflict ~~and their !vote is predictable~~.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

um...I'm not a heavy partisan in the A-I conflict. I find that rather insulting but nevermind. It's still an obvious keep based simply on evidence...which is how everyone is obliged to make decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Check my contributions if you don't believe me. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@brewcrewer: WP:KETTLE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik...—Biosketch (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - what an interesting, effective and well-written article. I'll use it as a model of clarity. The citations are both plentiful and robust. Contrary to nom, the article is exceptionally obviously notable, and the quote absolutely requires its own article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chock full of reliable sources. Just because you can't google it in 20 seconds, doesn't mean it's isn't a realiable source. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read this article a few weeks ago and it's quite interesting. The controversy and debate surrounding the quote and the numerous reliable sources used are sufficient evidence that this article is notable. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Azzam Pasha. This is an interesting issue and this article contains very useful information, but it probably doesn't need to be a stand-alone article. It actually would be more useful to note the controversy in detail on Pasha's page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of merging most of the information, with a few modifications, to the article on Azzam Pasha. That article is only about 25 KB long so we really don't need this article here. We should make it a redirect to the section I just created for the quote on Pasha's article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and disagree with Devil's proposal (though Devil has done a good job). In the English polemic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (though interestingly not in the Hebrew polemic history), this "quotation" must be the single most well known sentence, and is the only thing most people "know" about Azzam Pasha. Its appearance in several hundred books and many academic papers doesn't sit well with a claim of non-notability. Zero^talk 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the notability would justify having its own article. However, if a subject can be covered comprehensively in one single article it is better to do so. Unless the material about the quotation becomes too big for the article, or the rest of the article on Azzam Pasha becomes too big, I see no reason for having a separate article on something Azzam Pasha said.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disagree that Devil's Advocate did a good job in his edits to Azzam Pasha. Highlighting the distorted quotation and deleting the actual, and much more complicated quotation is seriously unfair to Azzam Pasha. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could have taken bold action like I did to improve the section, the only reason I hadn't made more changes was because I simply wanted to have the material merged over to try and resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of both parties.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my bold action would have been simply to revert all your edits because I believe that there really should be two articles. Merging this information into Azzam Pasha isn't completely unreasonable, but to do it justice I think we would need to add the full actual quote and much of the other information here too. Doing so would unbalance that article. How about waiting to see whether your suggestion for merger gains traction and then after this AfD is closed we can either expand the section in the other article if people want a merge or reduce it if they want two separate articles? Sorry if my previous comment sounded a bit snarky. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge to Azzam Pasha. Clearly the most reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. Like we would do for any notable person who said something memorable. Insisting on an entire separate article would be........what's the word I am looking for.........oh, right "Partisanship."--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brewercrewer, your accusations against me are tedious and false. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not necessarily so, e.g. Ich bin ein Berliner (and others). Also, the sources in the article are about the quote, not about the person so it's not unreasonable for an article to exist framed to match the way sources treat the subject. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quotation is brief enough to present in full, but maybe that would be excessive for Azzam Pasha. Therefore I think a separate article is appropriate. Zero^talk 13:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I considered, but my thought was that if someone familiar with Arabic could provide a complete translation of the interview maybe it could be uploaded to Wikisource. It would be public ___domain would it not?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy requires that the actual quote should be moved to Wikisource, regardless of whether this is deleted or merged.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one it should be removed a copyvio.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as separate article). Agree with Zero. A very well written article, and nice to see how good work on wikipedia can find its way full circle into an WP:RS. On the discussion above, this quote is very well known and therefore worthy of a separate article. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't get the insistence on having a separate article anymore. We can easily link notable mentions of the quote in other articles directly to the section in the Azzam Pasha article dealing with the quote. Right now there is no compelling reason to have a separate article for it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DEfinite keep -- It might be merged, but we certainly need it in WP, expecially after some one has verified its source and shown how it has been misquoted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (still a Keep Separate) I've looked again at the article, and at the Azzam Pasha page which The Devil's Advocate has updated. I still feel that the article is worth keeping, and the amount of attention that can be given it on its own page is more than justified: to avoid WP:UNDUE we can't have all of it in a merged article, and frankly it's so compelling on its own that it should stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only on copyright issue. I've nominated the image File:AzzamInterview.jpg for deletion at Commons solely because it is still under copyright in the U.S. and so cannot be hosted there. Because the interview was published in 1947, it misses the 1946 cut-off date. If the article is retained, I believe that the extensive quotation section under translation will need to be diminished in keeping with WP:NFC and WP:C. I've explained my concerns at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the quotation is the focus of the article and not just a quotation in support, this is a clear example of fair use "for the purpose of comment or criticism". Zero^talk 13:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the single sentence. I'm not talking about the over 300 words in this section. This is substantial; see the talk page of the article for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moonriddengirl arrived here ~~due to canvassing by~~ at the request of Brewcrewer here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I haven't expressed any opinion on the retention of the article. My sole concern here is as an administrator who works copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also note that COPYVIO is more serious then the silly pov-pushing by creating entire articles over a quote. MRG is not considered non-neutral on A-I matters, as far as I know, so I don't know how your canvassing attack is in any way relevant except for its ad hominem.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing accusation was not valid. My apology. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This quotation is very notable, and has been the focus of commentary and analysis for a long time. Add to that the story of its origins and it clearly deserves its own article. I could see making this a subarticle of Azzam Pasha, but there are too many (important) details about this quote for it to be fully contained within the main Azzam Pasha article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolinsky (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hutchinson

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

Dubious notability; current version of the article is not in WP:NPOV. Zzarch (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious notability, essentially unsourced, I've removed a great deal of inappropriate BLP material. Acroterion (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find enough reliable, independant sources to confer notability, outside of the fact that the article is very poorly written. Angryapathy (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I had also deleted a bunch of the BLP vio and it was restored by the creator. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the remaining references, IMDB is unreliable as anyone can edit it. The Tiger Lily Films reference doesn't mention him. Google returns multiple Jamie Hutchinsons, none of which appear to be this. I can't honestly see how anyone can get enough reliable sources on this one. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, not enough reliable sources at this time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:22, 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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim K Davenport

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

Career minor league baseball player who never made it past High-A, thereby failing WP:MLB/N. I can find no indication that he meets WP:GNG either, though searching on the name turns up numerous results on different people with the same name, including Jim Davenport, a former Major League Baseball player. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails one of the lowest of low bars at WP, the special guidelines for American baseball players. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even remotely notable. Who would create this page in 2012 if he hasn't played since 2009? COI? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like it was created as an offshoot of the original Jim Davenport page... as this guy is apparently the grandson of the other one. All that info was expunged by the nominator in a bogus "copyright infringement" case (fyi copying info from one wiki article to another isnt copyright infringement).... Article was probably created by a friend or relative. In any event, not notable.. perhaps worth a minor mention on granddads article.Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete votes are the only people that are using policy to back up their posission. The usrserfy !votes are de facto delete !votes since there was no intended target for userfacation. If you would like a copy of this for your userspace please post on my talk page. Guerillero | My Talk 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silent River Film Festival

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

Subject does not meet the general notability guideline. Proposed deletion was removed. Article appears to be promotional, with long lists of entries which have not been shown to be notable. This is not the Sundance Festival where films become notable because they appeared at the festival. Nor is notability inherited, so attempting to show notability by the length of the list of entrants is misguided. Yworo (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability and significance is evident from reliable sources (Times of India articles [11][12]), the notable organizer (Kalpna Singh Chitnis), the size of the inaugural festival (over 80 international films shown over eight days at multiple venues), and plans for this year's event ([13]). I think this year's festival will be better covered by the press so we'll have improved sourcing going forward. Jojalozzo 15:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is Kalpna Singh Chitnis notable? That article was mostly a copyright violation from Times of India and also doesn't meet WP:BIO. Yworo (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; although it maybe notable one day, from what I can find, there is not enough current significant coverage from third party reliable sources to have the subject of the article pass GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost every film festival is notable and this one seems particularly significant and in line with the precedent for the others that we include and seems to meet GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it in a notability essay, guideline, or policy that says that all film festivals are notable? The subject of the article, in my search for reliable sources, did not meet GNG. Furthermore, all the articles the mentions that I did find, I did not find a RS that passed INDEPTH. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I added some Times of India references some time back in order to lend the page a little more legitimacy, but it still seems rather dubious to me. If I were not an avowed inclusionist, I would be tempted to say "nuke it". Varlaam (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I agree with Varlaam (talk to userfy it, and then come back to mainspace when the festival has been held again. Linking to awardees would certainly be a good idea, too.
Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: The Times of India-1 (extensive article), The Times of India-2, and (to a lesser extent in terms of the geographic extent of the publication) coverage in student newspaper The Daily Titan. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Even while accepting the coverage, this is the first year this festival has taken place and we have no assurances that it will have a second year and it so-far has no lasting WP:EFFECT or WP:PERSISTENCE. As a so-far one-time WP:EVENT and could be seen to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As above... when this one has a second year, an article would be well worth considering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any doubt that it'll be held again next year? Dream Focus 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a major event, there 80 films shown, ample media coverage, and a major company, Sony Creative Software, gave out prizes. Dream Focus 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not appear to meet notability per WP:EVENT due to it not passing WP:EFFECT & WP:GEOSCOPE, regardless of number of films shown; furthermore media coverage does not appear to be significant IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:23, 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 speedily deleted by Fastily. (G4) 86.44.31.213 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yorubeat

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

This single-practitioner "genre" has been deleted before. It is unknown whether the current article is sufficiently similar to the original to qualify for G4 deletion, but it is still a genre with a single practitioner, making it not really a genre at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.15 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G4, G5. Hairhorn (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chandos Russell

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

This looks like a self promotional autobiography. There are no substantial claims to notability and no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only source in the article that directly mentions Russell and his work is a local news website [14]. Barret (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to this interesting topic & it appears well substantiated & with good references. Russell's activities with the Burma Campaign UK & the NGO Rights & Humanity are relevant, current & I would imagine, be of broad appeal. They are also well documented, with references & links both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briansresearch (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Briansresearch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment No google news hits for this particular Anthony Chandos Russell (0 hits), or any combination of his names. First listed source has no actual mention of the subject of the article. With respect, the subject may be laudable but notability does not appear to be established per WP:GNG. Syrthiss (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one of the references is of the standard required. The subject is clearly not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorsetArtMan (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — DorsetArtMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep. Interesting material, good cross referencing, with various supporting websites and articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olbigsoul (talk • contribs) (the creator of the article)

No significant third-party sources. Three of the Web sites quoted seem to be by the author of the article. Looks like a thinly-disguised piece of self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.148.45 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 78.148.148.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 14:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No attempt has been made to improve the quality of the sources. Not one of them is a significant third-party source. There seems to be no reason why this article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorsetArtMan (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims 'Russell is well known .... as the author of 'Evolving the Spirit - From Democracy to Peace'. However, according to the publisher's Web site, the book has not even been published yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrookesHistory (talk • contribs) 14:49, 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. Since the Ubuntu User article opened up, there have been a switch from delete to keep, and a note from the nominator that it looks like it might be enough to be kept. The two voices to delete that are still standing might not have checked the new sources. Therefor I think it's fair to conclude that this can be closed as keep rather than no consensus Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikiwiki

AfDs for this article:

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

I found zero significant coverage. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last AfD ended with no consensus with no guideline based vote. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Networkworld article (corrected link in the article) is compelling for me. Msnicki (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of the Network World article, Joey Hess, is the designer of Ikiwiki. Thus, for the purpose of counting towards notability, this source does not satisfy the requirement of being independent of the subject. --Lambiam 09:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The source is the publication, so as long as it succeeded to pass the editorial overview, it counts for proof of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to what? Yourself? SL93 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete.~~ Okay, I missed that and that was the only source I saw. Thank you, Lambian. Msnicki (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Per the above Drjames1 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough independent material (like WikiMatrix) to meet the WP:V requirements for sourcing, and to prove notability, I think it should be obvious that a piece of software distributed in Debian (the largest free software project in the history of the world) is notable. Steven Walling • talk 00:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiMatrix is a directory of wiki software. It does not show notability because it can list any wiki software. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: obviously an outstanding wiki software.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] More refs could be found in Google Scholar if needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By inspection of the titles, it's obvious two of your new references aren't actually devoted to discussion of this software. At best, maybe they discuss it. But more likely, it's just a trivial mention, e.g., the name of this software included in a list of similar stuff. Unfortunately, since it's behind a paywall, it's hard to know which. If you'd like us to assume the unlikely is true, that these references offer significant coverage, how about adding quotes and page numbers, not for the entire articles within those books you're citing, but for the pages that actually refer to this product? Msnicki (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least two are devoted to software. Other (coming from Google Scholar), seem to discuss the derivative software along with reasons of choice of ikiwiki as the base. Regardless, the most wikis I came across recently were ikiwiki-based; though this can't count for valid statistical research, it seems to be at least one of the most popular. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so now we know what constitutes a source for you. Using Google Translate, here's what that Russian document has to say about IkiWiki: "IkiWiki [14] - this involves representation developers to store and publish: Documents are stored in the "real" system Version control - defaults to Subversion, and compiled into a static HTML." And the Kleinman document is just an installation guide on a website and can't possibly be considered a reliable source. This is what you think establishes notability? Get real. If you want your position taken seriously, please don't waste our time with obviously worthless sources we have to weed through and discard. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to fail to notice that the Russian documents states ikiWiki to be one of two wiki implementations viable for building the system in paper's discussion. Doesn't that show notability? Regarding the other source: You might notice that the site doesn't feature indiscriminate collection of setup instructions for whatever exists out there. BTW, I'm not sure that You should discuss taking seriously my position. Specifically in the comment implying "grep $name | grep notable" approach to notability determining. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the entire mention of IkiWiki from that Russian document. I don't think I failed to notice a thing. It's a worthless mention. And please stop refactoring others' remarks. You've been warned twice, which is already one more than should be required. Msnicki (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - You would have better luck if You stopped using "grep" approach. Please stop accusing me of refactoring, I just cleaned up the formatting breakages after You. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it appears to me that Dmitrij's research uncovered one additional notable citation - an article in the quarterly magazine Ubuntu User. In my opinion, that brings the total number of sources establishing notability to two - this article, and the Network World article. Whether that's enough sources is a judgment call - I say no. Yaron K. (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Lambian pointed out (when I also initially missed it, above), the Networkworld article is by the author of this software, making it obviously WP:PRIMARY. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was written by the software's author, but an independent source decided to publish it, so I don't think it counts as primary. I agree that it would be greater proof of notability if someone else had written the article. Yaron K. (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may make it WP:RELIABLE, i.e., likely fact-checked and accurate in what it reports, but still WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Also, from WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Msnicki (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right. Yaron K. (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) considered it notable enough to publish. The author's involvement into ikiwiki doesn't make the publisher involved, he is indeed independent. And as long as the question of publishing the article (or not publishing) is that of publisher, we have an implication of notability by Networkworld. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No guideline or policy mentions that articles by someone non-independent are considered significant coverage if the publisher is independent. You're twisting around guidelines. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. Both WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCES explain the reasons of mass media reliability, making it crystal clear that the key factor of determining reliability is editorial oversight. And this source is third-party, as it is published in the medium the author doesn't exercise control over. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this guy wrote a book about his software and it was published by a notable publisher, do you think that the book could be used to show notability of the software? WP:NEWSORG says that it is generally reliable not always. WP:SOURCES explains verifiability which was never in doubt. SL93 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." - WP:No original research. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is interpreting this source. Still, WP:OR doesn't discuss the case of the involved author and uninvolved both editor and publisher. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing does. That's because it is still not independent because someone involved with the subject wrote the article. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELIABLE != WP:INDEPENDENT. Reliable just means that it's likely been fact-checked and accurate in what it reports. Independent means that no one associated with the topic had anything to do with the source. Sources can be reliable without being independent and independent without being reliable. But to establish notability, a source has to be both reliable and independent. Msnicki (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independence is not a boolean value (this is actually implied in WP:INDEPENDENT). The article, published in a fact-checking media is independent enough for establishing notability (along with other refs, eg. that from Ubuntu User). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent coverage is needed according to WP:N. We can't even read Ubuntu User and with how you consider sources significant coverage, I would likely disagree. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see Your point: two page article named "ikiwiki" clearly doesn't discuss ikiwiki beyond the trivial mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the facts are checked? Just because there are editors doesn't mean that they check the facts. Do you have a reference for that assertion? SL93 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORG says we can assume the facts to be checked in media unless it turns otherwise. Actually, You may notice the fact that WP:NEWSBLOG says that even WP:SPS material published in media's blogs is assumed fact-checked. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORG says generally and this is an extreme case. The creator of the software wrote the article so we do need a reference for that. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this guy wrote a book about his software and it was published by a notable publisher, do you think that the book could be used to show notability of the software? This is the same case. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have no experience in dealing with book publishers, so I'm not sure that their editorial oversight actually involves any fact-checking. The news media actually care about the topic of their competence, so they don't publish material which damages their reputation. That's why Wikipedia relies on media. And in this regard the article in question passes the test. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, Czarkoff, did you even read that article to know what it says? Or are you just listing it as WP:GOOGLEHIT? I'm suspecting the latter. Msnicki (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read it. It is needed to establish notability, not verifiable reference, so we need a fact of publication, not the content. Why did You link WP:GOOGLEHIT? It discusses the absolutely unrelated argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is needed to establish notability, not verifiable reference, so we need a fact of publication, not the content." That's not true at all. No guideline says that just being published shows notability. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point: it is evident that we have a source that qualifies for WP:RS. I wouldn't use it as a reference, as I don't have access to it, but we can use it as a proof of notability, as its attributes (publication medium, length, etc.) clearly indicate that the Ubuntu User considers ikiwiki notable enough for a devoted article. Still, I'll contact the publisher to ask for moving this article to the general access area. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They replied me that the article will be available in a couple of days. I'll link to it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Ubuntu User is now available. I've added a link to the ref (currently #1 in reflist). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

skeptical question For the two articles above in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, are the articles entirely or mainly devoted to the program? If so, I'd say notable; otherwise not. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not. As far as I could see from quotes, they discuss wiki software types and bring ikiwiki as a prominent example of one of the types. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The only reason I relisted is because of DGG's last question and the fact that Czarkoff indicated he's getting a copy of one of the articles in a few days. As it stands, the consensus is to delete, but there doesn't seem to be harm in letting 7 more days go by while we make sure of these points. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another ref: blog of Aaron Seigo (of KDE, thus reliable per WP:SPS).^[6] — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm changing my !vote again. The Ubuntu User article is persuasive. Congrats to Czarkoff for being persistent and finding it. Msnicki (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like there might be enough to keep this article. SL93 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, entirely promotional to the extent it cannot be fixed by normal editing, even if it should by some chance be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning Tide

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

This article has not been updated in nearly two years, it features no sources appart from the bands myspace profile Jonjonjohny (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the noms rationale - Youreallycan (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found My Daily News, but that is not enough sources. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 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 speedy delete. Speedy/Snow delete, as web content without any indication of importance. That it's only potential web content makes it even less acceptable. And as entirely promotional. CNN should be ashamed of itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never shout Nevermind

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

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

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

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

Never Shout Nevermind, an upcoming video-game does not provide reliable sources to corroborate notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, something this article is. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per criteria 1 and 8 of WP:GAMECRUFT. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is unfair when someone puts unreliable sources on the encyclopedia. But this is listing information that has been gathered from two different sources, both of which have links included in the bottom. These sources can be read by either: A) clicking on the links provided on the article for Never shout Nevermind, or B) going to Google News and typing in the articles' title.

Furthermore, this article has just been created. Not more than a single day ago has it just been put on Wikipedia. Time and effort will be put into this article, and will not be ignored or left as-is. I've seen plenty of articles that have stated rumors of upcoming events and various other "speculation." Information that was gathered for this article come from separate News sites, both of which are reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsith (talk • contribs) 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Johnsith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

strong delete - Neither of the news sources are "reliable sources". Both are services where a user can submit and get an article up by default, and it only gets taken down if someone calls for it to be moderated... this isn't the main CNN reporting, but the iReporter section (the report is branded "not vetted by CNN"), not the main KEYT but the YouNews section. Both articles were submitted yesterday (both by someone named "John" yesterday), so it appears to be a current promo push. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning Tide has recently been considered for deletion. From what I can tell they've been on for over 2 years on wikipedia yet that article is barely now being considered for deletion. Their only sources are myspace. Myspace is nothing but a promo push, and yet it's allowed to be used. A promo push and prividing information are two different things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff9115 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Geoff9115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you're arguing that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that's a failing argument; we don't hold off on improving Wikipedia because it is not yet perfect. If you wish to defend the article under discussion, it should be in terms of the article itself (and you're apt to have an uphill battle, given that it's about a non-existent video game featured in no reliable sources coming from a company that has never released anything.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once the game is released and gets some reviews it can can have an article. With projected release a year away it's way to soon. The way the games industry works release dates this far ahead are not to trusted. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the contributors to the article has started posting to places such as Yahoo Answers, asking for people to come and vote in the discussion. I'm putting the "not a vote" tab at the top to let anyone coming in know that this is NOT decided on a vote. You must back up your arguments with legitimate reasons as to why the article should be kept. The #1 reason the article is up for AfD is because there aren't enough reliable sources to show that this game is notable for something that hasn't released yet and doesn't have a set release date. Like future films, un-released games that are still in production need an extraordinary amount of coverage to show that they're notable enough to warrant an article before their release.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. There is no coverage of this game, no reliable coverage that is. Of the sources given, it's very very obvious that both of them were written by the same person: John Yakotu, one of the creators of the game. In the iCNN reports, the coverage is written by "john9115" and the story is put out on a faction of CNN where users can create their own news stories and post them to what is the equivalent of a blog. The other site (keyt.com) has their posts written by a "JohnKeyt" and appears to be the same type of scenario: it's a site where users can write up their own content and add it. Both articles seem to have been written about the same time as the wikipedia article was, and I can't help but wonder if it was in response to the requirement for reliable coverage. This is probably one of the worst attempts to game the system that I've ever seen. I'm also reporting the two accounts that created the page. When someone goes out of their way to attempt to create their own news articles and pass them off as reliable sources, it's hard to see good faith in their actions. This is just pure spam advertising.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - not notable at this time - perhaps in a bit but not yet. Youreallycan (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Pure self-promotion. No evidence of notability. Sources provided are fake. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your "upcoming" video game. Wait till it has been released and gathered enough independent comment to meet WP:42, and then leave someone uninvolved to write about it. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't this a garden-variety WP:CSD#G11? Frank | talk 18:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete - clearly non-notable, per WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously - non-notable, promotional, meat-puppetry, faking sources, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Game over No more continues left. In otherwords, delete. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable at present time. Can be recreated if meets at a later date. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Later - Why not just delete it , i mean when it comes then it comes out, you clearly have a lot of time left. try again later no big whoop.Danny 310 (talk) 19:40, 6 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) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references insufficient to be notable. hmssolent\Let's convene 01:43, 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. Max Semenik (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clignett

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

Dear Admin, How is this important for a separate article to be created? Thanks AKS (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted? There are many other familynames pages on wiki. What ever you don't feel is important, could be important to other people. Like this one for example [[15]] --Clignett73 (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clignett73; thats the reason I tagged it AfD with a question and did not tag it for "speedy deletion". Should the article survive, I strongly recommend that you articulate the article well as it is very difficult to understand anything from it now (sorry for being curt). Cheers AKS (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arunsingh16, This article was not created by me, but by a family member and it's still under construction. There is more info that needs to be added, so please can you wait with your proposal untill it's finished? Regards --Clignett73 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Just an other example, this article may be more related to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singh --Clignett73 (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clignett73; I am not an administrator and am a normal user just like you (with more experience on Wikipedia). It is not my personal opinion to delete anything and I am just trying to follow WP guidelines and flag articles to Admins for review. If they find an article suitable then they will revert my tag and leave the article intact. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers AKS (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems a clear case of WP:NOTDIR, which specifies this kind of genealogical entry as the kind of thing to avoid. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tigerboy1966 Quote:REMEMBER:Everything on Wikipedia is a big deal to somebody. The Clignett article is still in process and not finished yet. Personally, i don't think it's a clear case of WP:NOTDIR. So what is this article [[16]] all about then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clignett73 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well Clignett, at least you checked my user page, so I wish you good luck, but it will be a tough job to save this.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an A3: no substantive content, just a sentence and a bunch of links (most of those of no value). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have stripped the geneology, and it's possible that this could become like any other surname article - however, I've only found a couple of possible articles that mention the last name Clignett. Some explanation of the full notability of the article/name would help ... that is the type of work the originator of the article could really help with (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand all the hassle around the Clignett article. It was not finished, when I wanted to delete info I added it was considered 'vandalism' and I got warned (???)--Clignett73 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most surname pages are just disambiguations, and there are currently no articles of people with that surname, let alone 2 that would satisfy this. The "references" are unnecessary. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents Clignett73 when so many experienced people (not talking about myself) with several thousand edits each are saying the same thing, then there has to be a valid reason. Please understand that there are clear guidelines for all that goes into Wikipedia and it has to be respected at all times. About other articles on Last names (you took my example) - last name either has to be very widely used OR very important that it warrants a separate article. There would be “several hundred million” people with my last name in almost all possible countries in the world. Moreover my last name also represents different religious and ethnic groups from different demography; please do not compare different but similar subjects. We appreciate emotions & its importance but then articles cannot be sentiment driven. If that is the case then I would love to create an article about each of my family member as I personally feel that they are BIG to me. Please stop the discussion and listen what the administrators have to say. Please review Wikipedia guidelines before creating next articles. And don’t worry; articles created by most of us gets deleted once in a while (several articles written by me have been deleted). Lastly, Wikipedia is not test page; please save (create) articles only once acceptable level of information has been put there. Cheers AKS (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please with all respect, Arunsingh16. I am new to Wiki and I sure do make mistakes. I didn't know I couln't just delete something I added to the article. There are many wiki articles of families which includes their geneology. I don't know one person who has the Singh lastname. (And I sure know a lot of people on several continents.) To me Singh doesn't mean a thing, don't really care what else it means in different languages. You can also have respect for someone and let them finish their article first. Salut --Clignett73 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dear Clignett73, what you need to understand before editing, creating or reading any articles on Wikipedia is that one's personal opinion does not matter at all - sorry once again but what you think or feel is of no relevance here. Please adhere to the guidelines. For your better understanding, I will post some guidelines on your Talkpage (if I have not done so already). Trust this finally explains & happy editing. Cheers AKS (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per WP:NOTDIR ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Moreover, a cursory search shows that Clignet (single "t") is by far the more common spelling, and Clignett (double "t") is the variant spelling. --67.71.254.106 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Orangemike deleted much of the article content especially the part of te coat of arms including picture, which he now is proposing me to re-introduce. There is more to this family name and no, Cligne'tt' is definitely not the variant spelling. The 2nd 't' was officially added in the 18th century By a person born Clignet. Copied posts Orangemike & Clignett73:

"Removal External links

Hi there, I am editing the Clignett article, and was removing most of the links, can't you just give a person a chance to change it them selves? But you did remove some links that where allowed to use! You need to read this: Official links

Shortcut:

WP:ELOFFICIAL

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[5] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template [http:// Official website] is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4.

I'm fully aware of that passage. None of the removed links was to an "official link", since this family/lineage does not have such a thing as an "official link" or "official website". --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Well, some notable people who were listed do have their own official wegsite and you did remove those, sir. The Clignett article is not done yet. I'm in the progress to make an article on some of the notable people who were on the list, and why did you have to remove the part of the coat of arms. The other admins did not remove that, it is suitable for the article. That's is part of the familyname. There was also a ref you deleted that was considered valid. --Clignett73 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 1. The "official site" exemption is for an official site of the subject matter, which is a name and a family. There is no official site for a name or a family. 2. If and when there are articles about these people, they can be added to the article (if it survives the current AfD discussion). 3. The coat of arms did not have any kind of reliable source. 4. If there is a reference that you feel qualifies as both reliable and relevant to the article, then re-introduce that specific individual source; don't dump in links to every Google Books result for every book in their database that mentions somebody named Clignett. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, i didn't start this article. I didn't put all the external links in there, but the person who started this article. At the time you apparently deleted the whole section, i was looking at the links that could be of any use.

1. But for example, Robine Clignett 2, who was listed under notable people has her own website, you did delete that. There also is an article on wiki with her name listed Windward Passages under personnel, which you deleted. 2. Well, you didn't even give it a chance to be sorted. 3. In the Netherlands, EVERYTHING pictures, data, etc. (of deceased familymembers) even the coat of arms. That is stored/ archived at Genealogy Centers, museums, any data base I am free to use, because it concerns my familyname, but i do have to publish the source which i have . (And i even have that in writing) The picture of the coat of arms didn't need any other source than myself, because it didn't come out of a book. I asked the employee of the Genealogy Center (CBG) in The Hague yesterday if i need to add a source to that picture and she said no, because i took it myself of the original which has been in my family for a decades. 4. I will, but i have a 2 year old that also needs my attention. Now, it will only take longer to finish the article, because you took most of the usable stuff out, and i have to re-introduce it again. Please, give me time to re-do what i had planned to add in the first place and then judge what ever isn't suitable. Thank you --Clignett73 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)"--Clignett73 (talk) 19:50, 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. Michig (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad shivranji cross road

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

Dear Admin,

This is not important as article is only about a cross road (junction) in a city. Please delete. Thanks AKS (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and burn with fire - utterly non-notable intersection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously 98.64.181.170 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable junction. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:45, 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 delete. Guerillero | My Talk 01:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward (Tom Flannery album)

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

Promotional advertisement. Article was created by Kikomusic, which is also a music label, note reference on article to kikomusic.wordpress.com. This may also indicates COI and BADNAME. Kikomusic is indef blocked for spamming. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to have all appropriate notations etc. I just updated page to include footnote on PBS doc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.244.194 (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

66.64.244.194 and Wildcatcardinal Now blocked as sockpuppets of indef blocked spamlinker Kikomusic. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with The Shillelagh Demos (Tom Flannery album), the article has no independent references or claim to notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. -- Trevj (talk) 11:36, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shillelagh Demos (Tom Flannery album)

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

Appears to be a promotional advertisement. Article was created by Kikomusic, which is also a music label, note reference on article to kikomusic.wordpress.com. This may also indicates COI and BADNAME. Kikomusic has now been indef blocked for spamming. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the search you'll need is "The Shillelagh Demos" "Tom Flannery" album -wikipedia. It finds nothing except Kikomusic and an audio site, (Songaweek), which didn't work. Not just no RS, no sources at all except for the presumed spammer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has no claim to notability or independent sources. Indeed, by its very nature - an online-only album of solo acoustic demos - it's hard to see how it could become notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. -- Trevj (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Franjo Tuđman. information could also be merged into Military of Croatia Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vrhovnik

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

There are several problems with this article:

There is no proof that vrhovnik has ever been a rank in the Croatian Armed Forces. The aimpress.ch source quotes article 108 of the Law on the Service in the Armed Forces : "Vrhovni zapovjednik oruzanih snaga Republike Hrvatske ima zvanje Vrhovnik" - note, zvanje ("title"), not čin ("rank"). The 2002 act uses the word čin to describe ranks, and does so in article 15.
It is not true that the rank is "currently inactive". The 2002 act makes no mention of the word vrhovnik at all. Apparently this title - not rank - has been abolished.
There is no proof Tuđman's uniform was described by any law or regulation regarding this supposed "rank". The second source says nothing on this issue.
Even if vrhovnik actually was a rank (I'm considering this just for the sake of the argument), given the fact that it was a) discontinued, b) never given to anyone else but Tuđman, c) effectively the same as Commander-in-Chief, it does not meet the threshold for standalone notability. At best, this fact could be merged to Franjo Tuđman (and it would probably be of little value even there). GregorB (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I spotted this article yesterday and was on the fence about it. I haven't studied the documents mentioned by GregorB closely but it seems to me that "Vrhovnik" was effectively the same thing as Commander-in-Chief. All Croatian Presidents carry the of Commanders-in-Chief by default so the only thing which would make "Vrhovnik" stand apart is the fact that it was a synonym for that title used only by Tuđman, and that a special uniform was invented for it, worn only by Tuđman and currently housed in a museum. In any case, there is no potential for a standalone article. In my opinion it was just another visible way of Tuđman expressing his illusions of grandiosity, which means it could perhaps add some value to the Franjo Tuđman article, as a way of illustrating the circumstances of his presidency. Timbouctou (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but interestingly the title was not applied to Tuđman alone: MORH used "Vrhovnik" in 2006 at its website to report visit of then CIC Stjepan Mesić to a military training facility. I agree that the term was used virtually exclusively for Tuđman, but still...--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge but Tudjman used it during his presidency wear Uniform and rank Vrhovnik look at youtube.com, it was only time that he wear uniform with rank, i dont know how its defined on law in Croatia but de facto hes acting was as military person considered that he was Major General in YPA. It was title see here i dont know what happed is it abolished by the law of Croatia but its fact that it was existed like Marshal of Yugoslavia. ^{Snake bgd} 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the title seems to have existed but it no longer does, since at least 2002 (so it is not inactive - it is actually non-existent). The question is what is the potential for this article to develop beyond a short stub, and if it doesn't have any, what to do with it. I'd say that at best it deserves maybe a sentence or two in our Franjo Tuđman article, maybe accompanied with an image of his shoulder insignia. Timbouctou (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should remain as an act given that on the English Wikipedia was added as an equivalent rank marshal also if it should be left to the edit reliable references that would be a better article. ^{Snake bgd} 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:EXISTS. Note also it is apparently not a rank. GregorB (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok its title and it will be renamed it and problem is solved, it exsited Tudjman wear that uniform with shoulder insignia and article should be fixed not deleted.^{Snake bgd} 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another proof that title existed .^{Snake bgd} 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title was created by constitution of Croatia in 1995 and abolished in 2002. Thats enough proof of existence of this title.^{Snake bgd} 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Military of Croatia (Commander section) with a sentence noting the term in Franjo Tuđman for obvious reasons. Military Service Act of 1995, defines that "Vrhovni zapovjednik oružanih snaga Republike Hrvatske ima zvanje Vrhovnik" meaning that "the commander in chief of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia is styled Vrhovnik". IMO that particular style may now be out of use, but at one point it was used. I'd also add a note about it in Croatia section of the Commander-in-chief article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the same legislation clearly specifies that Vrhovnik is not a rank.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 6. Snotbot t • c » 08:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 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 delete. Guerillero | My Talk 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Goodbye (Tom Flannery album)

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

Appears to be a promotional advertisement for a free download track. Article was created by Kikomusic, which is also a music label, note reference on article to kikomusic.wordpress.com. This may also indicates COI and BADNAME. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kikomusic has now been indef blocked for spamming. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with The Shillelagh Demos (Tom Flannery album), there are no independent references or claim to notability in the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. -- Trevj (talk) 11:37, 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) 08:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

River Revival

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

Unsourced personal essay. PROD removed without explanation by article creator. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:ESSAY. It doesn't even pretend to be an article (starts with "Abstract", "Preamble"), so this is easy. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not an essay, it's copied from this website: [17], and it has no references. I think if the policy is notable, an article can be written from references discussing the policy rather than uploading the policy to wikipedia. Pseudofusulina (talk) 00:10, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J. Robb

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

Autobiography whose only references are weak sources, such as the "about the author" statement on a marketing profile of his book on a not-terribly-notable website. While it's certainly possible that he's notable in principle, this article as written definitely doesn't demonstrate that — if somebody can come along in the future and write a good article about him, that'll be fine and dandy, but this version doesn't cut the mustard in the least. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 6. Snotbot t • c » 08:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only criteria at WP:AUTHOR which he might pass is "subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". However, all I can find is this - and the review itself doesn't actually seem to be available any more. He's written quite a few celebrity biogs, but nothing that seems to have popped up on the notability radar. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTOBIO. -- Trevj (talk) 11:40, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lavatón

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

NPOV, biased article, no sources, orphaned Thief12 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a complete re-write but not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything on this. There's a vague mention of something that might be this incident in the Puerto Rico Herald archives ([18] section: NPP Legislators Leave Hearing On Electoral Reform) but as far as I can tell this incident isn't covered widely enough to meet the WP:GNG. No opposition to a merge with redirect to Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico if it can be rewritten in a neutral tone. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As obscure, not verifiable, not encyclopedic. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolej Tun Razak

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

While the university that this college is part of is notable, this part of the university does not have substantial RS refs covering it as far as I can tell. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Zero refs. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 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} 12:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Why didn't you just boldly merge this in the first place and skip all the hassle of AFD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've seen differing views expressed at similar AfDs, and in addition there is zero referenced text to merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vesa Luma

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

Requires better references to prove notability of living person. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know exactly who she is despite me not being from Kosovo, nor ethnic Albanian (I know their female singers - that's just how I am!) and if references are the problem, I am sure we can fix plenty. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please supply the substantive, independent coverage in RSs. That is what we would need to keep the article. Any editor's knowledge that the subject exists would not count towards notability, unfortunately.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two external links but there were sources in the first place. What exactly is required to prove the subject's notability? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two "Telegrafi" references in the article appear definitely reliable,and there are also many more Telegrafi articles about her ([19]), several short-but-not-trivial articles on Sot News (Vesa Luma: Ne jemi dyshja pretendente për çmimin e parë në “Dyshja Fantastike”, Vesa Luma pjesë e jurisë së shout “X Factor”, Vesa: Femrat duhet të marrin guximin t’i propozojnë meshkujve), and other not trivial news-resources here and there (ie Vesa Luma: Jo flirt me Big-un, vetëm bashkëpunim or Vesa Luma - a concert in Lubljana). The article requires a strong cleanup but there are enough secondary sources to support a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add - on the subject of secondary sources - there is no end to the Youtube features on the subject: promotional videos and interviews which are evidently taken from television appearances. Even if you didn't happen to know the native Albanian, it is unequivocal that the presentations are genuine and not artificially compiled. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Coalition

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

Not necessary- links to nonexistent pages Zzaffuto118 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:MOSDAB allows for redlinked pages, but it's preferable that the corresponding bluelinked articles link to the redlinked articles. The author seems to have a reasonable anticipation of articles for these coalitions. Josh Parris 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes the article has links but doesn't it seem redundant to have a disambiguation page that only links to one other blue link page? That article was in the backlogs from December 11th so it doesn't seem like the author has made any effort to work on those red-links. A disambiguation page with only one working link, after a month of creation, is unnecessary. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two redlinked articles are unlikely to be created. The one bluelinked article is not really very helpful, and should probably be merged into 2010–2011 Bosnia and Herzegovina government formation, or a similar article. Nevard (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early now, as it is unlikely that the redlinks will be turned into articles. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP ALL as spinoff articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season

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

As with the 1997 season, I thought I'd bring up a broader AFD on hurricane season timelines. These all follow the same logic. They're basically content forks of the season articles. They contain the same information on the same storms, with subtle differences (that is, the format). Several have been outright merged on their own, since they really didn't contain any additional content. Also included are all of the similar timelines, the ones that are not featured. Those are:

I am excluding all featured lists, as well as Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season and Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, since they are up for featured list candidacy right now. I also removed the timelines for 1995 Atlantic hurricane and 1992 Pacific hurricane, since both are rather notable seasons in the 1990s and warrant separate discussion.

Majority of the timelines listed are of stub or start class. In addition, all of them are solely based off the data from their respective warning centers. For the layman, that means the Atlantic timeline articles are only based off information from the National Hurricane Center, the same agency that classified those storms. It's a circular logic. If the NHC didn't classify the storms, then there wouldn't be info on those storms to put in the timeline. By contrast, if the Philadelphia Phillies didn't put a certain person on their website, and yet there are sources documenting a player in a certain year, you could have a non-biased and well-documented List of Philadelphia Phillies players in 2011 (or something). It may seem like a lot of timelines, but most of these have been swept under the carpet. They are simple and unabashed redundancies to all of their respective season articles. They contain minimal to no extra information, and if they do happen to have info that isn't in the main article, we can simply move it over. All in all, however, we need a discussion on this with a wide audience, ideally. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some, ~~but merge others~~ since I feel it's best to go this case by case, every season is different, some of the shorter ones can fit in the season article, other can't. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones would you keep? In general, all of them follow the same principle. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The logic underneath the nomination is fatally flawed. The relevant guideline here, Wikipedia:Content forking, states that "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure." (emphasis mine). Each one of these timelines is a summary style expansion of the chronological evolution of a particular hurricane season—a topic that many would reasonably expect to be covered in a hurricane season article. Now, if we look at a particular example from the batch of nominated articles, Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season contains detailed information of when each tropical cyclone in the season changed intensities. In particular, the timeline article is helpful to identify that three tropical cyclones (Jova, Irwin, and Tropical Depression 12-E) were active at the same time—a fact not mentioned anywhere in the parent article, 2011 Pacific hurricane season, except in the EasyTimeline image that is used as the summary of the timeline article. Moreover, the timeline article also shows that Hurricane Irwin weakened as Hurricane Jova strengthened—something that is again not mentioned in the main article, which is probably not necessary to mention in the season article, and which not even the EasyTimeline shows. I could go on, but in general, the 2011 timeline is a proper application of WP:SUMMARY—a type of content fork explicitly authorized by WP:CFORK. Similar arguments can be made for the other timelines, which makes a batch nomination unhelpful.
As for the other arguments in the nomination, they are either invalid or irrelevant. AFD is concerned with the desirability of a certain topic in Wikipedia, not the current quality of the articles. Mentioning that the articles are assessed by WP:WPTC as Start-Class or Stub-Class is in fact a textbook example of using AFD as cleanup: There is nothing that would prevent anyone from working on one of these timelines and improving them to much better shape. The other argument that these basins only use RSMC data is not valid, as nobody contests that such sources do not meet reliability standards, or that they are not scholarly sources. Even if you were to make an argument about them being primary sources, they still meet the main criterion for using such sources, as a) they are not used to make any novel interpretations of the topic, and b) they are used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source," which is the criterion that WP:PRIMARY sets.
In short, the arguments presented for the deletion of these articles are not supported by policy, and the nature of bundled nominations make singling out individual timelines to delete a nightmare for the people commenting as well as for the closing administrator. Hence, keep all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As for your first point, none of these were created when their season article became too long though. The more recent ones (like 2009 Pacific hurricane) were created while the season was active with little regard to length. The same goes for old ones, which were created while the season articles were fatally incomplete. That new bit of information in the timeline (those three storms being co-active) can easily be put in the season article, and it probably would have been mentioned if the season was closer to being finished. Then again, it might not have. If no outside sources highlighted the fact that three storms were active at the same time, then I'm not sure we should emphasize that. It's not our job to synthesize information to make it look more important than it actually is. In essence, we're just rehashing the information from the best track in each respective basin. The season article on its own is made up of a variety of sources, including the best track. By splitting off the one aspect that doesn't have any outside sources, we are doing a POV fork. As for the start/stub, I didn't mean that as AFD as cleanup. I fully intended this to be about the desirability of a topic. And I'm not saying by using the warning center/best track they are primary sources. I'm saying they're not notable. As I said earlier, I removed some of the more notable seasons, which by extension would have a moderately notable timeline. How notable is a timeline, really, of the Timeline of the 1974 Atlantic hurricane season? Is that really needed? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Timelines are currently edited simultaneously as the season progresses as a matter of convenience, which has no bearing on the end result of them being a reasonable method of presentation of chronological information of the season. As for the argument that nobody mentioned that there were three ongoing storms, a quick Google search yields news reports that directly contradict this, e.g. [20]. But again, similar arguments can be made about each individual season, and mass nominations for a broad series of articles will get you results targeted at the entire group of articles.
  - Besides, calling timelines POV forks does not make it true. POV forks are "a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" (emphasis mine). Timelines are not POV forks, as a) the topic (hurricane season chronology is not controversial—there are no distinct viewpoints in the way global warming has; b) A comprehensive, verifiable listing derived from reliable—heck, canonical—sources does not favor a viewpoint over another; and c) how there can be positive or negative viewpoints about how random clumps of cloud began appearing over the ocean is beyond me, to be honest.
  - As for the entire point about notability, you have not presented any argument that directly addresses the Wikipedia:general notability guideline. I posit that the "significant coverage", "reliable", "sources", and "presumed" criteria in that timeline are addressed by the walls of text I wrote above, and I won't rehash the same arguments. The only point where there could be any contention is the ""Independent of the subject" criterion, which asks for"produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]" However, a) we could simply source everything to news articles which basically cover RSMC data; b) we could write the same timelines using scientific journal data (e.g. all the Monthly Weather Review season summary articles); c) the data sources we are using comprise the foundation of many journal articles (see e.g. Landsea et al. (2008)); and d) the whole point of this criterion is "so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. "(emphasis mine again). How using National Hurricane Center data—data from a government agency tasked with producing that data—is an advertisement for the National Hurricane Center is beyond me. Long story short: timelines meet our notability guidelines. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, Tito, should the already merged timelines be reverted? and should renetion periods be added for FT/GT season to have timelines? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Asking to undo all previous merges is completely outside the remit of this AFD, and is as counterproductive as trying to delete 35 articles at once. Each one has to be discussed on its merits. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only problem with discussing them one by one is the fact that we were asked to discuss them all at once in the last AFD.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the policy-supported argument given by Tito. HurricaneFan 25 — 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Titoxd: summary style is not content forking. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Tito — Hink, I really do not understand why you keeping trying to rid Wikipedia of hurricane timelines. Look above. Timelines are not harming Wikipedia or Hurricane articles. And while I understand you should not base your opinion off of "it's not harming anything...", timelines are an acceptable type of content fork. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HARM. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - they are all content forks IMO since they are just rehashes of the season articles, which are meant to be summary style themselves and the time spent writing would be better speant improving the season article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have been thorough enough explaining why they aren't content forks. As for the other half of your argument, it's based on the assumption that people will want to work on the season article (a much more complicated task) even if you were to eliminate all timelines. I have never seen any evidence to back up that assertion. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a lot easier than you think to work on a season article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is again, not based on statistics. And ultimately, it is also completely irrelevant to this deletion discussion. If somebody doesn't want to—or doesn't feel comfortable—working on a season article, removing timelines, storm articles, or tropical cyclone will not make them more likely to work on the articles you want them to work on. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All – These articles all appear to be very reasonable and functional content forks, per WP:SPINOFF. The presentation style in these articles is useful for Wikipedia readers who want to view a chronological summary of hurricane and typhoon seasons in a convenient list format, and the format of the articles allows readers to compare different events in the context of a timeline. These articles serve to enhance Wikipedia, rather than being detrimental to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reject AfD out of hand, this is a long list of long lists. Given the heavy amount of information within each list, each list needs to be looked at individually. Aside from that, AfDs are concerned with articles that fail or potentially fail the notability guidelines, as pointed out by another user. Neither the deletion rational nor the arguments above indicate there is a problem with notability, rather citing editorial and content disputes. These are best taken to talk pages, WikiProjects and proper template usage, not AfD. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, don't delete/merge/redirect/trim. The timeline articles provide additional information than the main articles do. Dream Focus 16:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Titoxd. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep all well sourced articles which have been created only for years that warrant such an article. I'm a bit concerned about bad faith in this nom as well. RadioFan (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per policy, as admirably explained by Titoxd. -- 202.124.74.20 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:Duplicate, and WP:LIST. From what I can tell there is very little information contained in these timelines that is not already contained in the article on each respective hurricane season. Given that, this article is essentially just listing a bunch of dates and statistics relating to the hurricane season. None of these timelines appear to offer useful purposes for navigation or provide any information that cannot simply be added over to the article on the related hurricane season.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Huai'an. Sandstein 10:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No.1 Middle School of Xuyi County

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

Reads like an advertisement, doesn't use proper references to assert its notability. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable primary school. No obvious redirect target. Carrite (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Huai'an, per WP:OUTCOMES. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Per what I understand is our convention with primary schools. Perhaps we can SNOW this?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A middle school in China and other communist or former communist countries is the final stage of schooling equivalent to a secondary school in the UK and a high school in the US. Dahliarose (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank and merge any useful content) per usual practice. According to 'it' s development connects tightly with Xuyi High School. Meanwhile, No.1 Middle School of Xuyi County...' , it does not appear to be a high school. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are blanked and redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Windsor Boys' School. Guerillero | My Talk 01:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor

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

School through age 13. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Zero refs, and tagged for that since August. A merge was suggested in August, but no action has been taken. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge/redirect if necessary. Fails WP:GNG. DfE deem it a "middle-deemed secondary", but they don't decide our classifications. 13 is too young for our accepted standards. Fmph (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Windsor Boys' School or to the sponsoring authority, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree as this school is one of many feeder schools of Windsor Boys' School and is not linked to it, either geographically nor in terms of management or governance. • Dofedave

Keep. The fact that a couple of awards are mentioned suggests that there could be something more to the notability of this school. It might be possible for the article to be expanded further by someone with more information. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles because "there could be something more to the notability of this school", or because "It might be possible for the article to be expanded further by someone with more information", absent such RS-supported independent substantial information. And here, there would have to bring something special for us to act against the general consensus that absent extraordinary circumstances such schools should not have a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards go towards notability, i.e., "extraordinary circumstances". There is no "consensus", yet, that this article should be deleted. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are not supported by RS mention -- they are just bare, unreferenced assertions. They also do not appear to be especially notable, even if they do exist, if you look at the articles that underlie them. That is not the sort of think that would push us to ignore the typical convention of not having stand-alone articles for schools of this ilk.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a RS for those awards would be as difficult as contacting the article creator and asking. I googled just then, but found the wrong school... It can't be that hard. Again, you're asserting that there is "convention" to remove such articles. There is only a convention where the schools aren't notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the convention, I'll simply let other editors weigh in and confirm what I've said.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to parent No third party sources, no proof of importance of awards. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:47, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then go back to all those school, look at the articles on the wall, write down newspaper, date and subject and add the sources to the article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: not all schools are notable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been responded to above... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable Church of England school on the Edge of Windsor Great Park (and opposite Elton John's house!) and holds many awards. Dofedave (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dofedave (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable school with a long history dating back to 1725. The article needs a lot of tidying up and is currently in breach of copy violation but copyvio is not a reason for deletion. Dahliarose (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is known to be a copyvio, that should be reported ASAP, so it can be addressed. What is it a copyvio of--or are you taking the phrase "extract of" to mean that it is a copy-paste ... which I guess would be a normal reading ... without having seen the primary text? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know the copy violation and I will sort it out - I have been updating this page as I have close knowledge of the school and its history, and produced the history book on it.--Dofedave (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've already sorted it out. Thanks for doing that. I was referring to an earlier version of the article here which appears to have reproduced a big chunk of text verbatim from a book. Dahliarose (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to the "extract of" sentence referred to the sentence that appeared at the end of the History section of the article. It stated: "(extract from 'A Sound and Happy School' by Margaret Gilson, ISBN: 978-0-9536912-1-0)". I see Dofedave, while making other edits which I imagine were meant to seek to ameliorate the copyvio, has removed the statement, but it can be seen here for those who are trying to follow this.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Hilary Elementary School

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

K-8 school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Created by an SPA. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. Francis Xavier Secondary School (Mississauga), perhaps with a few lines of content merged in. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school board, Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: not all schools are notable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Deletionist ideology"? Thanks for your good faith. Such schools aren't notable unless they are proven to meet the GNG. As for redirect, there are tons of schools with this name, so choosing one over the other would have to come with a pretty good reason. There isn't anything to merge either--there is nothing of encyclopedic value (that they place a time capsule somewhere?), and nothing is verified with independent sources. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethtown Christian Academy

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

K-6 school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. May also contain copyvio from the school's website. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable elementary school. For the record, this one is Preschool to 5th grade, not even K-6. Very spammy tone to the page as well. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:48, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect this already: to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board#Elementary schools. Spamilicious, violates precedent that schools ain't notable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of detailed facts about this school at this Dept of Education resource. We have dozens of articles about schools in Kentucky and it would be an improper bias to omit this one. Warden (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I could live with a redirect--I don't have as much faith in Kudpung's reference as a precedent as they do. As for the "merge" suggestion, well, there isn't anything worth merging here. (It would require encyclopedic, verified content, and things of that nature.) Drmies (talk) 02:07, 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 redirect to Weston,_Massachusetts#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Country School (Weston, Mass.)

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

K-3 school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weston, Massachusetts or to the school district, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:19, 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) 14:50, 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. There is a clear consensus that this fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Baker

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

Article about what appears to be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who is mildly known for a couple other things, but even then does not seem to pass WP:GNG.

Sourcing is also poor and RSs don't abound. Google search turns up mostly self published sites, and indeed most of the article is sourced to the subject. Google news turns up nothing in history and nothing in google books seems connected to the subject.

Even if we are to keep the article, the use of SPSs must be severely reduced.

The subject himself is also a substantial contributor to the article who once said on talk that the only explanation for the bias against him was that he proved his 9/11 theories. N^oformation ^Talk 03:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As proposer N^oformation ^Talk 03:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Nominators are not allowed to also !vote. I struck out the above !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not take such liberties with my votes in the future. Nominators can vote as well as anyone else. Find a policy that says otherwise. N^oformation ^Talk 05:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Seb az86556 has cleaned up the article, removed all unsourced statements, fixed POV issues and removed unreliable sources. At this point there is almost nothing left for the article, and what is there definitely does not seem to qualify as notable. N^oformation ^Talk 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote yet. almost none of the glorious claims held up to scrutiny; anyone who wants this to be kept will have to do some serious digging and bring proof. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just blatant vandalism on the article. Goodness gracious. Now even my mainstream music credits are just cleansed. Last I checked, IMDB was a reliable source. The Pascal Dumont medical journal article is a mainstream source too. Yes, of course I believe this attack is related to the release of my 9/11 film, the timing is just too coincidental otherwise. The article about me stood for 3 years, and nobody cared, because it had been edited in a way that made me look bad. I try to add new credits, which by the way now include several songs as an artist and writer in American Pie Presents: The Book of Love. And what happens? An effort by Natty10000 to edit the article with false and unsourced material. So yes, I firmly believe that the agenda behind this effort to poison my Wiki article is owing to a fear about my 9/11 movie. Clearly Wiki?edia will do as they wish, so have at it folks. Ace Baker (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Vandalism has a very specific definition on WP and this is not it. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the project. Adapting the page to policy is not harming the project QED. See WP:NOTVAND. (ii) IMDB has never and will likely never be a reliable source on WP because it relies on user generated content and thus fails WP:V. (iii) I don't care about you or your conspiracies and nor had I heard about you until I saw your article get posted by someone to WP:NOTCENSORED - I'm a scientist and the only thing that could interest me in 9/11 would perhaps be if it was actually carried out by martians (IOW, politics aren't my thing). When I found your article I took the appropriate measures that I would for any article like that. (iiii) However, your accusations against other editors are neither welcome now permitted on Wikipedia as per policy. (iiiii) I didn't remove the bit sorced to the medical journal so I have no idea about that. (iiiiii) Everything that was removed was either unsourced or improperly sourced. If you disagree you can ask about teh sources at WP:RSN. (iiiiiiii) You may want to read our article on Dopamine. N^oformation ^Talk 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, what should be done with this article Gary Richrath? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Baker (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nofo says (as if relevant) "I'm a scientist and the only thing that could interest me in 9/11 would perhaps be if it was actually carried out by martians". That's a very special quote. The strontium-barium correlation, the radioactive tritium, the molecular dissociation, the evaporated steel, etc don't interest Nofo, but martians do. Hilarious. Ace Baker (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nofo characterizes me as "a 9/11 conspiracy theorist", ignoring my mainstream success in music. Then, coincidentally, another editor removes all the sourced music credits. Go team, go!! Ace Baker (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? He was a member of an incredibly popular band... N^oformation ^Talk 05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, are you serious? Chemical reactions are not specific to the twin towers. what happened on the day of the attacks is not my bag of tea, I'm happily interesting in all sorts of physical science but not in any context relating to 9/11. Secondly, your mainstream success in music was unsourced or improperly sourced. If you feel you can find sources then please bring them up. N^oformation ^Talk 05:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that Gary Richrath was the member of an incredibly popular band is your original research. "Incredibly popular" is not encyclopedic. Yes, I personally know about Gary, because I was in that band in 1991. But anyone reading Gary Richrath now will discover that 95% of the article is not sourced. I just sent you there, and you're fine with it, yet you decimate the article on me, while claiming that you "took the appropriate measures that I would for any article like that". Well, I'm now calling your attention to the article on Gary, and observing whether you take appropriate measures. Ace Baker (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) If you were the guitarist of a band that sold 10 million copies of a single album then we would be talking about the same thing. (ii) Sorry to be rude but do you really see yourself as notable as the guitarist of REO Speedwagon? That's patently absurd. (iii) If you think that article is unsourced then try to find sources and if you can't then remove the unsourced content. I tried to find sources on you and I failed. I asked you to provide sources and you have not done so. (iiii) Create a better analogy. Find me another article about someone who has little claim to notability and whose page is littered with undue self-published sources and I will treat that page as it deserves. Gary Richrath is famous. You are not. N^oformation ^Talk 06:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie as Princess and the Pauper sold 10's of millions of copies, and I wrote and produced the end-title track. American Pie Book of Love, I'm in there. I was in REO Speedwagon, the Supremes, Mother's Finest, and Iron Butterfly. These credits were absolutely fine for 3 years, until . . . my 9/11 film came online. Now, I need to be gone. Ace Baker (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find sources for what guitars Gary plays? They're all listed in his article? They're not sourced.

No, so I removed the section. Can you provide sources that you were in REO Speedwagon, the Supremes, etc? Drop the 9/11 garbage. I am asking you for sources and you are skirting the issue, I assume, because you don't have any. If I found your article 3 years ago I would have brought it up three years ago. Now either provide sources or drop it N^oformation ^Talk 06:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if IMDB is not a source, then I can't prove my credits. There must be 10,000 references to IMDB on Wikipedia, if not 100,000. If IMDB were really not a RS, then Wiki would make a bot to flag them all. Ace Baker (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde_jazz

This article, plus nearly every person linked in the article, should be decimated as you did me. Ace Baker (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This AFD is about this article. If you can provide sources that meet WP:RS guidelines then the article will stay, if you cannot then it will be deleted. Nothing else to it. N^oformation ^Talk 06:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:IMDB if you don't believe me. N^oformation ^Talk 06:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Barbie movie, credit at 3:30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DYLlss-Kok Ace Baker (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Ace. Just step way. Go away. You have the heaviest case of COI here. Don't even touch it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm going to level with you. Even if you find a few credits here and there that said you existed, unless there is significant coverage in multiple secondary sources it's not going to muster past WP:N. None the less, I've put about all I'm willing to put into this conversation. The best thing you can do is find as many sources as possible and make the article better before the AFD finishes. Also concur with Seb. 07:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noformation (talk • contribs) 07:24, January 6, 2012‎

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Nothing in gnews, gbooks gives one reference (one of Baker's lyrics is quoted in The American Dream by Miles Palecek, which is self-published and thus unusable); so far all I've found on the internet generally are Baker's own websites and a couple of forums - again, nothing to satisfy WP:RS. The fact that the article seems to be an autobio also suggests that the subject is not notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Shortcut

WP:SELFSOURCEWP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.Ace Baker (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...but, per WP:GNG, not for the purpose of establishing notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've confirmed Yunshui's findings above. Multiple searches turned up nothing substantial enough to meet the requirements of WP notability policies. Most of the information about him that is available is self-published or traceble directly to him. This seems to be blatant self-promotion. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Fails to satisfy our notability requirements, due to paucity of substantial rs coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, I admit it. You got me! I made it all up. Blatant self-promotion, all of it. I never actually got a gold record, I never wrote "I'm On My Way" for the Barbie Movie and soundtrack, I never scored any films with James Coburn and Dennis Hooper, my artist songs were never in American Pie Book of Love, I was never in Iron Butterfly, or REO, or Mother's Finest, the guy in the video playing for 50,000 people in Amsterdam is someone else apparently, I never was awarded a patent, I never coined a medical term with its associated treatise, somebody else did that too, so that journal article means nothing here, and I never made a film about 9/11 that got a million hits. I apologize and beg forgiveness. In reality I work at the grocery store or something. Make the article disappear, just like they made my court case disappear from the public records, which was, of course, Orange County (California) Superior Court Case 0510990.Ace Baker (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first time you made a pointy edit was when I came across your article (that is, you throwing a tantrum on WP:V - had you not done that then there's a decent chance your article would have stayed under the radar). This time your pointy sarcastic edit is just adding to your article getting deleted. If all those things were true then you should be able to find sources. Wikipedia is not a playground nor a place to publish yourself. You have a major COI here and it really would be best if you just left this to the regular WP editors. N^oformation ^Talk 00:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. If what you say is true, then had I not made a pointy edit, then the article would still be there. Would that be "best"? Ace Baker (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that I have also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clair Marlo, who evidently worked with Baker on the ESPN documentary, for the same reasons as this AFD (save the 9/11 truther stuff). N^oformation ^Talk 00:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG in any category. Lucky Louie's Litmus-like Law of COI also applies: "The more they argue they are notable, the less likely they are notable" - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing the WP:GNG requirements, as well as missing the criteria for inclusion in more specific areas that might apply, like WP:NMUSIC. DreamGuy (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WIki guideline for WP:GNG:

"Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition."

I wrote "I'm On My Way", end-title song for top-selling DVD "Barbie As Princess and the Pauper", also on related soundtrack album. This is fact, and was cited and sourced, until Noformation and crew VANDALIZED the article about me. It is absolutely certain that editors removed the sourced material for the express purpose of abolishing the notability. Obviously, NO SUBJECT is notable, once the NOTABLE material is removed from the article. What filthy, provable liars you are. Ace Baker (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the following text in the same guidelines: Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.. I will leave someone else to comment on the notability aspect as I've never heard of your works. There is a signficant lack of reliable sources. Also guidelines aren't the same as policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What About American Pie Presents: The Book of Love?

I wrote and produced and sang a number of songs in this film, and my credits appear in the Wiki Article. I had nothing to do with this article, BTW.Ace Baker (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, just because you're work is featured in a notable production, it doesn't mean you meet the requirements for your own article.--81.159.171.164 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those seeking further comment from Ace, please note that he has been blocked indef.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources that have been presented and found their way into the article have had enough impact on the discussion to say that there is consensus to keep the article Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's School, Oamaru

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

School up to year 8. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I have started a section on 'education' on the Oamaru page and will transfer some of the content to there. Schwede 66 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are these above !votes based upon a search for sources, or just sourcing as it existed in the article at the time the above users posted? Are these !votes policy based, or based upon personal opinion? Clarification regarding this matter would be helpful. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 7 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, no, it doesn't mean GNG, no matter how often you copy this on school-related AfDs. And what important content is there in the article that's worth saving? "In case it ever gets verified"? Might as well bring in monkeys with typewriters. If you, however, manage to dig up a bunch of microfilms with exciting references, I might change my mind. In the meantime, your assumption that "there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination" shows a blatant lack of good faith and deserves a spanking (St. Joseph's style). Oh, "that all schools are notable" obviously our guidelines and practices--even the link provided above by Kudpung puts the lie to it. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This school appears to have a long and respectable history as a quick search soon throws up a detailed source from 1891 — over 100 years ago. It is therefore notable per the WP:GNG and should not be deleted per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. If this school dates back to 1891, then it's one of the older schools in the region. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show how it meets any of our guidelines for notability. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect if you must. No reliable sources, nothing worth noting, and no valid arguments for keep presented anywhere here, except for a. unacceptable assumptions about the nominator and b. "it's old." Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is the above !vote based upon source searching, in which reliable sources just aren't available about this topic, or is it personal opinion about this topic in general? There's a lot of "no's" in the above !vote, (no reliable sources, nothing worth noting, no valid arguments for keep, etc.), but they all appear to have been countered by editors that have contributed to this discussion and the article itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [21] is about the school, and [22] is about the ST. JOSEPH'S SCHOOLS' CONCERT. Ample more results to dig through, but I think that satisfies the GNG just fine. Dream Focus 03:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An historically significant school, with news coverage dating back to 1891. This article would benefit from further improvements, such as the addition of more reliable sources. The Wikipedia editing policy WP:PRESERVE outweighs removal of this entire article from Wikipedia in this case. Here are three sources that I have added to the article, and others are available:

"Dominican Convent Schools, Oamaru". Volume XX, Issue 7. New Zealand Tablet. December 4, 1891. p. 19. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
"St. Joseph's School". Volume XXI, Issue 10. New Zealand Tablet. December 23, 1892. p. 31. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
"St. Joseph School's Concert". Volume XXXVII, Issue 7888. North Otago Times. May 31, 1893. p. 3. Retrieved January 10, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding. I'll summarize your findings, in order: 1. On 25 November 1891 students received diplomas and awards; on 23 December 1892 there was song and dance at the end of a school term; on 31 May 1893 a school choir sang. Now explain to me how any of this constitutes discussion or coverage of the school--let alone significant discussion. Your zeal is admirable, but there are puppies in the real world more worth saving than this school. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article about puppies has zero inline citations so there's room for improvement there. Meanwhile, the mainpage has Brad Pitt as the featured article, the news section has a hot air balloon crash in NZ and DYK tells us that the Who sang a song about body odour. Me, I'd rather read about the history of this school. Why do do you want to prevent me? What is your policy-based argument? Warden (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, if your idea of exciting and still encyclopedic reading is this, "The teacher who manages the middle syndicate is Miss Melanie Sloan. She suffers from early onset rheumatoid arthritis," then... well, I have no "then." Drmies (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want excitement then you can read our featured articles. Yesterday's Brad Pitt told us how he had a job dressed as a giant chicken. Today's tells of a disturbed person who stuck a broomstick up his backside. These articles would fit nicely into sensational magazines like Hello or True Crime. Whether you care to read any of this stuff is a matter of taste and de gustibus non est disputadem. But note that, if any of these articles were "deleted", you would still be able to read them as the full text would still be there and available to users with permission. So what's your point? You're trying to dictate what others can or can't read and this is contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is already sufficiently well sourced. It is a very old school with a long history. Not all the historical sources are easily accessible online. Dahliarose (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A venerable school easilly noteable enough to pass GNG. The good independent sources found by Dream and NorthAmerica1000 have been integrated into the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG. Mattlore (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but not opposed to a redir. Insufficient refs to meet WP:GNG and primary schools generally do not have article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kelson, New Zealand. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelson Primary School

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

Primary school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to Kelson, New Zealand where it is already mentioned, per nominator's own suggestion, . Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:21, 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) 14:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kelston as per norm. Mattlore (talk) 22:30, 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. Tone 19:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Riggs

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

Unsourced biography with dubious claim of notability. All but one external links merely direct to subject's personal sites, such as his Facebook and Twitter accounts, and the one that links to a possible reliable source (IMDB) makes no mention of anything that this article is about, so I can't even be positive if it is the same individual or just someone else with the same name Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He is the author of Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children which at the time of the AFD nomination has no article, but should have one, and I intend to correct that. The novel was/is a NY Times best seller: see August 2011, and current. There is a bit of biographical material about the author interspersed with material about his book in this Sarasota Herald-Tribune article, and this National Post article. The keep is a weak one as notability as an author seems to rest mainly on the one work, and his other works have not received the same attention. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have now created the article Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. Given the number of book reviews and coverage for the book, redirecting would also be a viable option. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've expanded the article on Ransom Riggs, and added references. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability. See also [23], [24], [25], [26].--Michig (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be enough reliable sources to establish notability, including quite a few newspaper articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus visible to delete anything based on the discussion below. There is however a clear indication that Blackfish and Bielby should be merged, though not specifically which article should be the main article, and which should be merged in, and either looks possible. There are very few opinions below on Death Ray, so either a seperate merge discussion or a separate deletion discussion for that article seems prudent Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bielby

AfDs for this article:

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

also nominating:

Blackfish Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Death Ray (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Walled garden of VSCA created by an obvious COI and WP:SPA. Can't make out how notable the subjects are, but the sources for the bio don't hold up under scrutiny - all seem to be dead. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Same individual created all the relevant accounts - looks like personal publicity/vanity project. Not seeing a whole load of notability asserted or supported by 3rd party sources. We are basically left with a 46 year old guy who formed his own minor publishing company. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but would settle for Merge with Future Publishing or Your Sinclair). Matt Bielby was well known as a contributor to various computer magazines in the 80s and 90s (eg: C+VG, Your Sinclair - also was the editor for at least one of these), and would be well remembered by those who grew up using these systems at that time. He's done a bit more in the public eye than just form a publishing company.--Ritchie333 (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Unfortunately, being "well remembered" doesn't count. He needs to have been written about. And he hasn't, except by himself. No significant coverage for topics of the other articles either. EEng (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response You've taken that small quote out of context. I specifically said he would be well remembered for being an editor and journalist at several notable magazines. EMAP and Future Publishing decided they were prepared to publish his name and likeness every month to tens of thousands of people. You could argue that notability is not inherited, but in that instance I'd prefer a redirect to a straight delete.

Just to clarify, I think the article definitely has problems. It was written with a conflict of interest and hence without a neutral point of view, and the sources are crap. (In a funky skillo sort of way). But that doesn't automatically imply deletion. Have you also reached your conclusion to delete based on looking at the two magazine archives I have linked later in the discussion? --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. It's worth noting that the creator of these articles, Arsecakes, identified himself as the copyright holder of this [27] self-taken photo of Matt Bielby (look at the reflection in the sunglasses). Also, he commented in Talk:Matt Bielby about what it is like to have an article about you selected for deletion, an odd thing to comment about if he, Arsecakes, had merely made an article about someone else rather than himself. To be fair, he probably didn't know the rules here since he'd not posted here before. Kaid100 (talk) 19:32, 22 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 - T P 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ as Vanispamcruftisement. I don't feel the sources (for any of them) are up to scratch, and my spidey-senses say 'tendentious creation' Pol430 talk to me 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to merge into Blackfish Publishing per RadioFan's rationale. The company's notability seems to be there but the notability of the other articles remains questionable. Pol430 talk to me 13:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The current sources are no good as they're all just put together on personal sites. But I think a scan of the original magazines published by Future Publishing, which were commercially published and sold in UK Newsagents reaching a circulation of tens of thousands would pass. We just need ones that clearly show Matt Bielby as the editor, and preferably also containing the magazine's circulation figures and publication credits. They were online years ago, but they may have been pulled due to a copyright violation with Future. So - my question to the deletionists is - how do you prove something is a reliable source if it's been out of print for 20 - 25 years and putting it online is against copyright? --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found online scans of Your Sinclair and C+VG. Buried in this lot will be the information I'm looking for. Could some kind soul whose internet connection is not as flaky as mine go through and have a look? I've tagged the page as {{rescue}} for this reason. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bielby The publications Bielby has edited are all of the reasonably important journals in their fields. Merge the Blackfish article in , with a redirect, redirect for Death Ray. (In principle we could keep the blackfish article, and include the other two, but I really do not like the practice of included executive bios in company articles--it's too tempting to spammers. ). DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSA: Notability isn't inherited. Even if the journals are "reasonably important in their fields", it doesn't imply that the editors of those journals are notable themselves. Kaid100 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added this as an additional source. Not sure of the reliability of the University of Minnesota Press - never heard of them before now. Can somebody follow this up? --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup on the page. The old references have all gone, and I have added alternative ones from a book search that appear to pass muster. The bio of everything he did pre-EMAP is totally unsourced and violates WP:BLP, although it's probably correct given it appears to be self-written (but suppose he lied?) so this will need further cleanup later if and when the consensus is to keep. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The editor of a magazine is notable, since its listed in the infobox of magazine articles. They control all the content and make the magazine what it is. He has worked in that position on many notable magazines. References also exist like this one [28] which talks about him, Death Ray magazine. He is notable, his magazines are notable, and his company that publishes a notable magazine is notable. "Bielby, who was group senior editor at Future, has 10 successful launches under his belt, including Total Film, PC Gamer and Official PlayStation 2. Each magazine, with the exception of Total Film, hit the top spot in its respective market." Dream Focus 08:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Blackfish Publishing which does appear to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:V. The biography and magazine articles are vain spammy messes that should be selectively merged into the publishing company's article. 1 article is sufficient to cover this, 3 are not warranted. RadioFan (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see reliable sources and multiple non-trivial coverage.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All – Each of these articles have been covered in reliable sources. After retaining the articles, then a merge of all to Blackfish Publishing would seem logical. However, due to the lengthy and varied opinions in this AfD discusion, the best place to propose and discuss these merges is via discussion on the respective article talk pages, rather than in this AfD discussion. See WP:MERGEPROP for information about proposing article merges. These articles are meeting/passing WP:GNG, per:

"New movie mag launched in Bath". Thisisbath.co.uk. May 28, 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"SFX founder returns to sci-fi". Press Gazette Magazine. April 27, 2007. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Reynolds, John (April 14, 2009). "May launch for new film mag". Mediaweek.co.uk. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

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

Keep all While I agree with Kaid100's assessment that the articles themselves were all in fact created by Matt Bielby himself, that doesn't negate the fact that his company and magazines are quite notable. I also applaud Ritchie333 and Northamerica1000 in their efforts to to improve these articles during this discussion. Stubbleboy 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this be closed soon? The last relist was ten days ago, and the AfD discussion has been ongoing for more than a month. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It's because there are currently so many open AfDs. Stubbleboy 14:34, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 01:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hibombo

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

Article fails to make clear what makes this journalist notable. A small row is not enough. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this "small row" seem to have had quite alot of attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 15 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} 01:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my say from weak keep to keep.. just to signal that I still is in support of keeping the article. and after reviewing it again I find that a Keep is for the best.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like mr. Hibombo is that important that nobody is interested in him, except you and me! That is not a good sign for his notability! Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - and you take that as an indicator of notability? geeesh.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete -- why is there no article in the Swedish language wikipedia? --Austrian (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An article about a Swedish person who doesnt have an article on Swedish Wikipedia isnt per that fact unnutalbe and its not a reason to delete.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a reason, true. It just casts doubt on his notability. Austrian (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. Seems he is notable for having minor immigration issues and having a barney with a theatre director! Does not meet the notability requirements per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E Pol430 talk to me 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still consider this a article to keep. Its clear to me by reading it and the sources that the subject is clearly within WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per WP:BLP1E . The coverage does not indicate broader notability. LibStar (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Castro

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

This subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. I can't seem to find significant coverage in reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: For those wondering about the {{spa}} !votes: I mentioned this AFD on Twitter. For those who might have a problem with that, note that my followup recommended that those who want it kept should find reliable sources and add them to the article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recruiting and for this note! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This user has become well-known for her work in Catalan publishing, e-books and the future of publishing, and as a writer of numerous books on website creation and other tech help topics. Please do not delete. Several of us who know Liz's work are adding documentation to her article. I just added info re her major award for her work in Catalan publishing: http://www.omnium.cat/ca/noticia/omnium-premia-liz-castro-per-visualitzar-catalunya-al-mon-5472.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtechman (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Mtechman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Two motives for keeping Elizabeth Castro's entry in Wikipedia:

Elizabeth Castro's ePublishing books are outstanding, with unified laudatory reviews the world over. Her name is most famous in the ePUB world. She is a bestselling author in a category (technology books) where female presence is almost nonexistent: a model to be followed.

Elizabeth Castro is admired in Catalonia as an advocate for the dignity and global acknowledgement of the Catalan language (speaking population: 10 million), especially in the United States of America. This shows a person with a moral sense of justice.

So she is a double outstanding person. Wikipedia needs more acknowledgement of female achievers, and Castro's presence in Wikipedia could facilitate young women the world over to choose her as a modern role model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrella1975 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Estrella1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Elizabeth Castro has played a major role in educating millions of individuals world wide in the art of making web pages. Her books on the topic of HTML and CSS alone make her an influential person in the world of technological development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdebolt (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vdebolt—this is great stuff; do you have any reliable sources we can use in the article to document the impact that this author has had? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ErikHaugen-I am adding review sources and quotes to document impact, especially with regards to encouraging self-publishing via ePub format. Mtechman (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ErikHaugen-quotes I have added (and will add) are all from reputable sources.Mtechman (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elizabeth Castro is an expert in the field of specialist EPUBs. Please do not not delete her entry. Ken Anderson, Costa del Azahar, Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.47.165 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 79.147.47.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elizabeth Castro meets not one, but two different criteria:

WP:AUTHOR requires that "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."
Searching for her on Google Scholar results in 194 citations for HTML for the WWW: VQS, 80 citations for HTML, XHTML, and CSS:VQS, 36 citations for Perl and CGI for the WWW: VQS, and so on.
WP:ACADEMIC includes:

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.

Searching across university web sites results in over 11,000 course syllabus pages that reference one or more of her books.

Between the above, I believe that she easily meets the notability requirement. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated in WP guidelines WP: Author, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Elizabeth Castro certainly qualifies as a widely and frequently cited author and blogger. Currently she is an important source of information about ePUBS. This is easily confirmed by examining Google's listing of links to her blog "Pigs Gourds and Wikis" (link). There are lots.--TPiwowar 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpiwowar (talk • contribs)
Keep Elizabeth Castro is one of the best sources for information about epubs. Please keep. Andrew Partington, Perth Western Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPartington (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Max Semenik (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cusack

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

This article was recently mentioned at WP:Articles for deletion/Susie Cusack and should be deleted for the same reason: WP:Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: to clarify, the discussion on Susie Cusack was about a recreated article, the article not being sourced but possibly sourcable and being improvable, the significance or not of Susie's roles and her shorter career, and the notability or not of her awards. No one opined a keep per inherited. Considering the discussion a result of "no consensus and add sources" might have been possible. We have a different situation here. While the Bill article also mentions the family in its background section, I do not see that mention as being an assertion of notability. The article assertion here is that Bill is an actor, and his longer-than-Susie's career must then be weighed per WP:ENT. Like any actor, he's had a number of roles... many minor. As we do not judge an actor only by the least of his roles, which non-minor ones can be considered were significant to their storyline? Tony McCoy in Ed Wood? Bobby in Quiet Days in Hollywood? Frank Jr, in Three Shots? Joel in Delinquent's Derby? Dr. Lundy in Elvis STories? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One apparently major role in a minor film and a minor role in a major one isn't enough IMO; the rest are mainly generic unnamed characters. The two so-called "references" don't even mention him. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the John Cusack interviews, John does mention his brother... but in no big way. In looking beyond the article's current lack of sources, we need to look through what is available elsewhere,[29][30] to see if we can find something that speaks about Billy in a a context beyond his being John's brother. We do have sources that speak toward Bill's work in theater or toward characters he's portrayed in a somewhat more-than-trivial manner.[31] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline, but the subject seems to pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Differently from her sister Susie, he has a continuous career, some significant roles and some secondary coverage. - Cavarrone (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited --Guerillero | My Talk 01:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Howell

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

Self-promotional garbage. Was quoted in a Washington Times column once, that doesn't make her notable. —Chowbok ☠ 04:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while she is a published author, I don't think she meets WP:AUTHOR as being significant in her field. Frank | talk 16:44, 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} 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly promotional in intent. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Kuhnert

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

Barely known German singer, hardly meets WP:NMG. Poorly sourced biography of a living person. bender235 (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are some sources independent of the subject. Here's an article on a better known performer he toured with. Here's a prize he won in 2009: best biergarten in the Vogtland, out of 40 entries - also confirming his winning the national prize for re-creating regional dishes 2 years before that. And here's another Saxony newspaper devoting an entire article to him. There may well be more press coverage that isn't indexed by Google. I think with the national award and the frequent regional/state press coverage, he squeaks by under General Notability, but the article creator could usefully add more press citations if they know of any. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The singing chef looks to be an only locally perceived star (Vogtland, a part of Saxony). Most of the mentioned sources are from local (local news sections of) newspapers. No significant nation wide coverage, no nation wide tour or charts entry. The national prize for best regional dishes he won is from a semi-governmental Marketing Association for German Agricultural Products (de:Centrale Marketing-Gesellschaft der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft) that no longer exists. That prize is far away from any stars or toques.--Ben Ben (talk) 20:30, 17 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 22 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) 13:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough news articles about him, even if they are local, to meet the GNG. The Steve 06:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:23, 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. All !votes were to keep, and the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Last Surviving Veterans of Military Insurgencies and Wars

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

Article is confusing: lists people who have died but claims to be a list of living people, its impossible to verify these claims. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this submission makes no sense. It it a list of people. Some are dead, some are not. That is all. Article is well-referenced. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is a list of the last surviving participant in various wars (i.e., the last one to die). It seems to be well referenced, which disagrees with your claim that the content would be impossible to verify. Perhaps you misunderstood the page? Prodego ^talk 01:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the referenced list, but lose the extra capital letters. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, the name should be modified per WP:LOWERCASE. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. "Last surviving" doesn't mean "living." -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per everyone that's commented so far. Eeekster (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 04:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formally Withdraw Request': I clearly misread the article and the point. This article might need a little clarification but not deletion.Zzaffuto118 (talk) 04:43, 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 keep. Tone 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlexWiki

AfDs for this article:

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

This wiki software, which was under development from 2004 to 2009, seems to never have gotten notable coverage during that time, and usage on only one notable site: Microsoft's internal Channel 9 forum. Yaron K. (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable software; little coverage in reliable sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See below for sources that have been found and added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 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} 01:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 1 2 and 3. – Pnm (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited above by User:Pnm; they're reliable sources that significantly cover the topic. Added to article:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage found in reliable sources. Dream Focus 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now meets WP:GNG with reliable sources added RadioFan (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Raider

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

Fancruft, too specific for an article of its own. (doesn't meet notability guidelines on its own) Should be adequately covered in the main article. Prod was contested by an SPA. Prodego ^talk 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of Google News references, [32][33][34] and numerous references in books. Granted, the article is mostly focused on plot, but when Cylon Raiders are compared to modern U.S. drone weapons, it's clear that the fictional element has made a lasting impression on the real world and established independent notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources above and rationale by User:Jclemens:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough secondary coverage. - Cavarrone (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neatly fits in in the Battlestar Wiki but not here as there is no real world relevance. You might update the related articles there with the content of this one as they are rather short. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1945k III

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

I found zero significant coverage. This video game fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. One link doesn't work: the other is trivial. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable."Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Frantzis

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

This BLP has no independent sources and I believe it fails to show notability. The subject doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for either martial artists (WP:MANOTE) or authors (WP:AUTHOR). I got an impressive number of ghits, but I had trouble finding any independent sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG per coverage in various books (I've just added a few more to the article), also meets the first criterion of WP:AUTHOR ("widely cited by peers and successors") - his books are in the bibliographies of just about any serious book on internal martial arts you'd care to name. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, meets criterion 5 of WP:MANOTE; many internal martial artists recommend his books to their students, eg.[35] (Recommended reading section), [36]. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets all the stated requirements of notability. There are a wide variety of independent resources and numerous books cite his work. I saw numerous pages that had less detailed references for less known martial artists and healers that weren't flagged.Imagebreaker (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic appears to pass criterion #1 of WP:AUTHOR. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 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. Tone 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical inventory

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

WP:OR Zzaffuto118 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was NO reason to take this to AfD, especially when you used the same reason as the prodder. Nobody had removed the PROD. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 01:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTADICTIONARY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear business dicdef. Unreferenced/OR in addition. I don't understand why the nom didn't simply let the PROD run its course or endorse that prod? OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transfer to Wiktionary. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as a stub WP:STUB and because the article does not include Primary, secondary and tertiary sources WP: PSTS. The article does have potential WP:POTENTIAL and appears to be note worthy WP:N but would need verification WP:VERIFY.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Soo

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has only 1 reference and it's not independent. It's been tagged for a large number of issues, some going back almost 4 years. I found nothing in the article that shows this is a notable style (see WP:MANOTE) and the large number of ghits doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a lack of independent reliable sources supporting notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject appears to be the style of a pioneer of Kung Fu in the USA, Jimmy H. Woo (mentioned in the first deletion discussion). If the founder is considered notable, I think that merging this article to the founder's article might be appropriate. Not being an expert on these subjects, and not having researched either of them yet, I am just commenting for now. Janggeom (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. See The Reality of Kung Fu San Soo, for example. Warden (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep You can't tell it from this article's sources, but it appears to be a significant style. The article needs work, especially independent sources, but I think it can be improved. Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added several relevant references and rewritten some sections to read a bit better. Should easily pass WP:N now.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks much better now. Perhaps some of the tags can be removed by someone who knows more about this topic. Astudent0 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean (attraction). Any substantial sourced content can be merged from the history to the extent consensus exists for that. Sandstein 09:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean (Disneyland)

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

Orphaned and unnecessary redundant fork of Pirates of the Caribbean (attraction). Previous attempts to merely keep this page as a redirect were reverted.[37][38][39][40][41] Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge if possible. Buggie111 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean (attraction). The Disneyland version is already extensively covered in the "attraction" article, so there is little or nothing that needs merging. I'm not sure I see any point to keeping this as a redirect page, but as the saying goes, redirects are cheap. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the decision is "redirect": Considering that previous redirects were reverted by the article's creator no less than five times, maybe the page should be protected after a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move Pirates of the Caribbean (attraction) to this title~~Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean (attraction)#Disneyland We obviously don't need both articles; but I feel that the Disneyland title is the more useful of the two Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be inappropriate, because the "attraction" article also includes information about the Pirates rides in Florida, Tokyo, and Paris. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Forgot about those johnnie-come-latelies. (SoCal for the win!) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems that the Disneyland ride more than meets the notability guidelines - if someone thinks that there is a redundancy, remove the excess in the "attraction article" leaving just the summary and provide a link to the detailed article on the subject. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect; although the subject is notable, it is not any more notable than any other of its sister rides. If there can be references from reliable sources that can show it is notable in its own right individually, not just as the ride itself, then I may change my current opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect; unless this ride is uniquely different than the main one (which nothing suggests it is) there is no reason to have a separate article. I have not checked, but it is likely the same (or similar) design. Lord Roem (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MergeLuciferWildCat (talk) 19:05, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by the nominator and no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edberg–Lendl rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. There are also no reliable sources, which describe this as a rivalry. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 09:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ see below This is just a list of results. There is no suggestion that there was a "rivalry", they just happened to be two of the top players of the time. The topic does not exist. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar tennis rivalry articles have been deleted recently , e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agassi–Chang rivalry (2nd nomination). The problem is that without independent media coverage about 'the rivalry' itself, these articles are nothing but head-to-head results lists, and we have no prose to go with it. It then fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.

According to WP:NSPORTS, rivalries are not inherently notable. We need several sources about the rivalry to justify having a standalone article about it. That's also what we included in the notability guidelines on the wikiproject tennis recently Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability.

If somebody can find sources we can keep this article, otherwise it is a delete. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again two former world number one players who met 27 times head to head compared to Federer v Nadal 26 times including 9 Grand Slam tournament encounters and three Masters Grand Prix year end finals encounters between them I really don't know how you feel this was not rivalry as with the Mandlikova Evert rivalry you just need to look for the media coverage. I can't believe this its like saying lets fast forward 15 years from now when someone else on wikipedia decides that remember those matches between Nadal v Djokovic well they were just a series of head to head matches between two former number one players.--Navops47 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but without reliable sources identifying this as a rivalry, it is just a list of matches between two top 10 players. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reference here to their Grand Slam rivalry Charlotte Observer 1992. If it wasn't a serious rivalry why are Amazon selling a book about it http://www.amazon.co.uk/Edberg-Lendl-Rivalry-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6134281913 --Navops47 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another reference here to Edberg being involved in classic rivalry's (Lendl mentioned) from the ATP no less http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/DEUCE-US-Open-2008/Edberg-Offers-A-Champions-Reflection.aspx.
Withdraw nomination in light of the sources found by Navops47. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's good to see these AfD come to a reasonable close. Edberg-Lendl and Evert-Mandlikova were the borderline cases, and now that sources about the rivalry have been found, they can stay as standalone articles. Now the tennis rivalry articles have been cleaned up and it confirms the guidelines we tried to set for them. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Withdrawing delete in light of refs found. In future, whoever is creating these articles should consider finding the refs before posting the article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree they should have been properly attributed during creation--Navops47 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's why I tried to add a guideline about it on the tennis project. Hoping (dreaming) that at least a few will read it before creating more rivalry articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure). Stubbleboy 17:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. There are also no reliable sources, which describe this as a rivalry. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 09:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no subject here. There is no suggestion that there was a "rivalry", they just happened to be two of the top players of the time. This is just a list of results. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Similar tennis rivalry articles have been deleted recently , e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agassi–Chang rivalry (2nd nomination). The problem is that without independent media coverage about 'the rivalry' itself, these articles are nothing but head-to-head results lists, and we have no prose to go with it. It then fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.

According to WP:NSPORTS, rivalries are not inherently notable. We need several sources about the rivalry to justify having a standalone article about it. That's also what we included in the notability guidelines on the wikiproject tennis recently Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability.

If somebody can find sources we can keep this article, otherwise it is a delete. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article just because no sources have been added does not mean this rivalry was not relevant simply find them. Infact until Graf came on to the scene seriously around 1985-86 Mandlikova was the only female player to break the Navratilova, Evert duopoly in women's tennis during the early 1980's. --Navops47 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was not a serious rivalry can someone explain this press coverage from 1981 to me then The Telegraph Herald September 8th 1981 That's a newspaper article providing media coverage of the rivalry look around people. --Navops47 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good find. Happy to admit I'm wrong withdraw delete if a couple more like this can be found and added. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the source found by Navops47 to the article as a reference. I want to give this every chance, but I am sticking with "delete" unless at least one similar story turns up. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another newspaper article from the Pittsburgh Press 1981 describing it as an intense rivalry --Navops47 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another on-line article here from the Sun Sentinel Newspaper stating 'Evert and Mandlikova had met every year at the U.S. Open since the 1980 final, when they played their first match. It has become a traditional fall rivalry, and Evert leads 18-3'
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1985-09-06/news/8502070114_1_hana-mandlikova-evert-last-year-semifinals.
Comment In this article from the WTA it uses the term notable head to head's http://www.wtatennis.com/news/20100101/looking-back-at-a-legend-chris-evert_2256076_1920790 --Navops47 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination in light of the sources found by Navops47. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Collegiate Investors

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

Single chapter student investing club at Georgetown U. Claims to be the largest "student investing company," but with assets of only $90,000, that is not enough to make it notable. Note that the article was created by User talk:Gtown Investors.GrapedApe (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable spam. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is certainly not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Bhadani (talk) 11:52, 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. But keep in mind that WP:BEFORE is a guideline, not policy, and that the article still needs several more additional references. Two for an article that has recently gotten a lot bigger simply isn't enough Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modified non-admin closure on review. Franamax (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)</s,all>[reply]

Shattuck Avenue

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

WP:STREET guideline among others. Consensus seems to be we don't need an article even on every somewhat-busy street. Particularly when the only reference is GoogleMaps, which doesn't really count. Will throw out the life preserver, as I think there's a small chance it could be saved if more RELIABLE information on the eatery district is added Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment part of a never ending series of constructive deletion nominations by this editor targeting topics in Richmond, California and surrounding area. This is a major arterial street with a rich history and surely has lots of references. It also is home to several important and notable places. For instance the terminal to a major BRT line, a major BART station, UC Berkeley, La Pena Cultural Center, the headquarters for Power Bar, Berkeley High School, Berkeley City College, and is in and of itself a major business district in a major college town city of over 100,000 people, it is important enough to have a major subway line passing under it, with two stations, the second being Ashby BART, it also is a major hub for AC Transit and Bear Transit buses and tons of sources are out there. Taking all that into account it should be ~~kept~~. The nominator himself expresses that it could possibly merit inclusion it is also the site of anti-war movements and the Marina Corps Recruiting Station scandal and hippie movements and the gourmet ghetto.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Speedy Keep as the find sources tab clearly shows several dozens of mentions in various scholarly sources, book sources, news sources, etc.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forbid, I insist that bad articles be fixed...Article has no sources ATM, so notability cannot be established Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right forum to encourage an article to be improved. Notability is established per NRVE and the sources are plentiful based on the find source links. In fact I have told you repeatedly that I am more than open to editing articles and improving them. Your statements here show a serious delusion of what policy is and what it isn't. You have been told repeatedly that this is not the right way to do things.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't, actually. Article has no sources and won't be notable until there are some That's actually what NRVE says. Not what you're saying Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE says the proof of sources is all that is needed, and that they don't have to be included inline or in article for them to be so. Stop lying. Numerous other editors have insisted this fact to you on several other AfDs.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not the place to "insist that bad articles be fixed" — it's a place where the inclusion-worthiness of subjects are challenged, debated, and resolved. Good articles, bad articles — it's pretty much irrelevant: the question is do reliable souces exist? Shattuck Avenue is one of the main drags of Berkeley, California and it is a little surprising that this one came up here, frankly, as I anticipate there are published histories of Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Area that deal with the street in depth. However, there are no sources showing in the article, so the challenge is not unreasonable.(BTW: You two need to stop punching each other in the face, it's not gonna end well...) Carrite (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's THE DOWNTOWN BERKELEY ASSOCIATION : "The commercial life of Downtown Berkeley began in 1876 when Francis Kittredge Shattuck, one of the founding landowners of Berkeley, persuaded Southern Pacific to run a spur line through his property, terminating at what is now Berkeley Square and Shattuck Square. Rail access provided impetus for new commercial growth. When Berkeley was incorporated in 1878, Shattuck Avenue was already established as its main street at Berkeley Station...." Carrite (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE IS CHAPTER 13 of a History of Berkeley, which is showing 65 hits for the word "Shattuck" on my screen. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here is BERKELEY: A CITY IN HISTORY, by Charles Wollenberg, with coverage of pioneer namesake Francis Kittredge Shattuck starting in chapter 1, and substantial mentions of the street and why it is important to city history in chapter 3. There are many, many more potential sources out there; the nominator would be advised to follow WP:BEFORE prior to listing a topic for deletion debate. An easy call here. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:STREET, cited by in the nomination is not a "guideline," as stated; it is an "essay" — that is, an opinion piece with no weight here in terms of policy. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close - AfD is not clean up. WP:STREET is an opinion essay; not policy whatsoever. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not whether or not they're present in articles. Nomination doesn't provide examples of consensus regarding their statement about street notability on Wikipedia, other than WP:STREET, which is not based upon consensus. The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per guidelines at WP:DEL#REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

École élémentaire catholique Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau

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

School through grade 6. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school board, Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est. This school lacks sufficient coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school board, Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est, per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I understand the arguments brought forward, I do think the school does have a sense of notability as it is the first school in Canada to be named after ex-Premier Pierre Elliot Trudeau. It's your call. --Deenoe 03:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Tx. I do see that the article says it is the first school in Ontario to be named after him. Are you suggesting that all grade schools that are the first to be named after a prime minister or similarly notable person be deemed notable, and their articles kept?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are routinely named after notable people. That does not make them notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 13 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) 10:07, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 01:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arch-Bishop Okoth Ojolla Girls School

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

school with no references, no relevant information and, as far as I can see, no or hardly any relevant and reliable hits on Google. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The consensus at hundreds of AFDs over recent years has been an assumption of notability for high schools (for which "Secondary school" is a synonym). Google Map shows the school's ___location, if you search for "Bishop Okoth Girls Secondary School" in Kenya. It is on the Kisumu-Busia Road just West of Kisumu, Kenya. Under the title Bishop Okoth Girls Secondary School, Kisumu, Kenya references can be more easily found, so a move to a new title might be a good idea. There may be other similarly named schools in the country. Edison (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even searching with alternative names, the sources on this institution are desperately thin. Agree that high schools are usually considered notable, but I can't see anything that gets anywhere near being "in-depth coverage".

Comment How many newspapers and magazines published in Kenya are covered by Google News archives? Zero? Until someone has checked Kenyan newspaper archives, I am unconvinced that no reliable sources have published articles about this (or other Kenyan) high schools. High schools typically get significant coverage from newspapers over a wide region, as their academic and athletic accomplishments are discussed and praised or criticized. That is why we have generally found high schools to be notable. Edison (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a number of Kenya newspapers, both covered in gnews and in a regular google search and on their own websites, as well as some Africa newspapers and other newspapers that cover Kenya. We do have a number of Kenya articles, with online sourcing to RSs. I agree that all-English countries have better sourcing, but Kenya is a country in which English is more popular than many countries we cover. I appreciate your points, but I'm not sure that we can assume the existence of RS coverage where we haven't seen it. That would open up quite a large door, through which much non-RS-covered material and even hoaxes could wander in. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be a be a school of this name in Kenya. There are no reliable third-party sources with sufficient detail to establish notability. I have taken my time on this one. Maybe one day this will be a viable article. Not today. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable high school. No evidence of a local search for sources which experience shows are almost certainly available with sufficiently diligent hard-copy searching. TerriersFan (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have more sources to add, feel free to do so. But by now the article has no information and no sources. Maybe in your opinion enough to assume notability, but there is no proof of it. And as long as the "long standing consensus" tries to overrule WP:GNG, I can not adhere to it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that our general rule is to keep RS-supported, verifiable high schools, but am still uncertain whether we have the RS-verifiable support for this girls school.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would be worried about setting a precedent in which we assume that RS must exist, even if we havent seen any. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While on the one hand, we generally keep high schools, that is subject to there being RS support for their existence. I don't see that here. There are in fact many articles of Kenyan newspapers and of African newspapers that cover Kenya that are accessible on gnews (as indicated above) and through a regular google search. I don't think it appropriate to "assume" RSs exist where we can't see them. I'm happy to change my !vote once/if RSs are presented, but I've not been able to find them and what is pointed to above falls short of RSs IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per standard practice for secondary schools of confirmed existence. I've tried to put a little minimal information into the piece, just sort of goofing around this evening before bed. I've actually bumped into an interesting little history of the school in the process: Mary Gen Olin, Kenya – A Brief History, 1974," School Sisters of Notre Dame, 2001. More than I care to decode and write up this evening — the prose are challenged. Still, this goes to show there's content out there. Kisumu is the 3rd largest city in Kenya, incidentally, following the massive Nairobi and the really big Mombassa — 260,000-ish according to a source I spotted, bigger than that according to the WP article on the same. Carrite (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do note from the history that there is a connection between this school and the School Sisters of Notre Dame organization in Mankato, Minnesota. There might be American-based sources on the school relating to their efforts to establish the Kenyan school, for what it's worth. It's a small school in the developing world and the sources are sparse. The idea of stubs is setting a marker for an encyclopedic topic which needs to be expanded in the future, which is the case here. Carrite (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice source, too bad that it is a first party source as you can see in "In 1991 we turned Ojolla over to

the Sisters of Mary, an indigenous community, as was the mission philosophy of the Kenya Area before we began formation." Alas, no reliable source. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just debate this matter for another six weeks and 14,000 words. Policy: WP:IAR — The encyclopedia is better with stubs of this sort than without them. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is enough to stick to WP:GNG. WikiProject Schools claims the exception far too often. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is of secondary school level which for now meets current guidelines for schools. Until Nights proposed RFA happens then its a keep for me. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have fun with it, but it was not my RfA. As long as NickCT does not officially starts his RfC, schools should just adhere to WP:GNG and not to some self-invented "long standing consensus" Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do think that we could streamline these discussions if our consensus -- whatever it is -- is embodied in our notability guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was your RFC regardless but I'm not getting into that but for now there is a longstanding consensus there so until your RfC changes that then the pre existing consensus remains which has been there for some time. It dosent change over night. Just because you don't agree with it and have challenged it dosent mean it should be ignored. The RFC may go either way and until then there is no reason to change the current way. The primary schools that have been nominated all should go but if it is secondary education involved for now it stays. Things don't change over night things will run its course and once happens a clear picture will emerge and we will have clear set down policy once that happens if it states they go then they go then. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting into this private convo -- but out of curiosity, where is this RFC?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is mixing up the discussionb started by me about the notability of schools and the RfC that NickCT proposed and will launch soon. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not live yet but will be soon i would imagine. It will probably change consensus on whether secondary schools are notable or not. As i say hasn't happened yet which is why we should go with existing guidelines until it does. There has been plenty of dissuasions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools and in the archive.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources have been shown to exist. African schools are desperately under-represented in Wikipedia. We should be making every effort to encourage African school articles not to delete them. Also the nominator has failed to advise Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa of the AfD so the Afd should be relisted before any decision is made. Dahliarose (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Changing you comments days later is very unhandy. Indeed I did not contact WikiProject Africa. 1) I am not requiered to do so and 2) it is there own responsibility to follow articles that are of interest for them. So not having warned them is not an argument to prevent closure at this time. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It exists, that is true. But is it notable? I do not see any sources that shows notability, ergo it still fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - One of the sources shows that the school's two classrooms initially had no ceilings. The bishop had to provide some cement and the Belgian government eventually sent some aid. Such unusual circumstances are alone notable enough to justify an article. There would undoubtedly be French-language sources in Belgium for the funding if we only knew where to look. Dahliarose (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No sources to back up the story in Dutch, French or English. (Search term: "Bishop Okoth" and (Belgium OR Begië OR Belgique)). It is more then likely that the Belgian aid was send through a local partner, of which we do not have a name. A search on "Ojolla Girls School" AND cement also return no usefull links. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The sources are not necessarily online. There is also a dearth of African sources on the internet. Lack of internet sources is not a reason for deletion, especially for articles relating to countries which are under-represented on Wikipedia. Dahliarose (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I do agree w/Dahlia that off-line sources -- where they exist and have been cited to -- of RSs are sufficient. At the same time, I think it a stretch that goes beyond our guidelines to suggest that we imagine such sources to exist, where the only reasons to conjure up their existence are: a) un-referenced text inserted into wikipedia; and b) the fact that the subject of the article is in a country that is under-represented on wikipedia, in Africa. Not only is such an approach not, to my knowledge, supported by our verifiability policy, it would I imagine open up the floodgates for all manner of disruption -- imagine if one could insert whatever they wanted into text in an article on an African subject? With no verfiability safeguard? And if the shield of "this is an African country subject, under-represented on wp, so even though there is zero RS support for the statement, you must let it stand" were the result? Not good.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that ultimately if no reliable sources can be found then the article should be merged or redirected but more leeway should be allowed for articles in countries where internet usage is low to counter the inherent Systemic bias on Wikipedia and allow more time for editors to address the concerns. It would be preferable to tag the article in the article in the first instance to indicate the problems, and especially where the sources that do exist suggest that the subject matter is potentially highly notable. I am particularly concerned that such a potentially important article has got mixed up in this disruptive mass deletion campaign where due procedures have not been followed and the sheer scale of the deletions has not allowed editors sufficient time to respond, particularly as much of it has taken place over the Christmas holidays. In this particular case the nominator has not even had the courtesy to notify all the relevant projects as Wikiproject Africa has not been informed. I've just amended my vote above to advise of this omission. Dahliarose (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice one, Dahlia. You keep inventing new irrelevant arguments to avoid the inevitable. As I stated above: I am not requiered to inform them and the project has its own responsibility to look after the articles that might be of their interest. And assuming good faith, I guess you have informed them by now? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL, nothing of mr. Dahlia to warn them. But I did find this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa#Article alerts, an automatic alert. So without any effort of me or mr. Dahlia, they did get the warning... Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        An automatic alert is not likely to be picked up by most editors. I'm not the nominator. It's the nominator's role to make all the necessary checks and tag articles before nominating. How do you propose that Wikipedia overcomes systemic bias if we do not allow some leeway for articles in third-world countries to develop? Dahliarose (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Leeway? No thanks! Help? Always!
        
        To my opinion leeway in the sense you mean, will send the project in a hopeless wrong direction. Then they learn that articles without proper sources are no problem, but in fact it is a problem. Unfortunately, later on is much to late to correct this. I prefer to give them help by writing articles. Wait a bit with nominating articles, show them what is expected of them, send Jimbo out to give lectures, and so on. But they should learn it the right way straight away! Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So how do we get African editors to contribute to Wikipedia? Their contribution is vital if we are to improve the coverage of African subjects but the cause is not going to be helped if we permit thousands of school articles with little claim to notability simply because lots of trivial sources exist but at the same time delete potentially interesting and notable school articles in Africa because we have no local editors who can work on the articles and access local sources. The sources that have been found can act as a lead to find out further information. Dahliarose (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I admit, on that point I am clueless. That is more a challenge for the Foundation. But for sure, learning them bad habits, will bite back later. Perhaps we should invite people to write about railway lines, cities, touristic and historic attractions, create a Wikiproject Kenya, create a userbox for Kenya-Wikipedians. There are so many option to reach out to them, physically (by the foundation) and socially (by helping and coaching individuals. But by God, don't send them straight into the swamp! Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per convention for verifiable high schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer to just stick to WP:GNG instead of a self-invented convention/rule/long standing consensus. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove that this is a 'self-invented consensus' . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the proof that is established by a vote or a RfC and I will retrackt my comments about being self-invented. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we all agree that this school ought to be notable an should have an article. The problem some of us have is that the sources that have been found so far are very weak. And we have been trying to find some better ones. We seem to be heading for a "benefit of the doubt" keep. I do think however, that unless the article improves we may all be meeting up again a few months hence for an Arch-Bishop Okoth school reunion. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, I prefer to just stick to WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am concerned when I see a facebook page in the top rank. But google is not perfect. Somethings are popular in Africa yet you will never see them on google. But they are real. The Kenyan paper should be okay in this case as a ref.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:51, 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 Newton Hall#Education. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warrented. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finchale Primary School

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

School through age 11. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to County Durham per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newton Hall#Education per nominator's own suggestion, and where it is already mentikoned. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 6 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) 10:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect). Very long article, but it fails to say why the school is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article demonstrates the notability of the school quite comprehensively, with notable alumni and sporting achievements given. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or merge/redirect if necessary. Unfortunately there is nothing notable about the setting. It's a bog-standard primary. The stuff that might establish some form of notability is, unfortunately, unreferenced. It's been written in a way to try to fool a casual observer that it is on the way to GA status, such as a long list of wikilinked paces that the children visit as part of the curriculum. Unfortunately none of this establishes notability. Fmph (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it stands, notability does not appear to have been asserted, and as I said above, a redirect to Newton Hall#Education is of course the most likely outcome. That said, I think it's been written in very good faith by a SPA (possibly a teacher or a student), but where the creator has probably taken another school article as a model, they should have read WP:WPSCH/AG before they started. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Dinky DK3

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

Tagged for lack of notability, and lack of refs, for over 2 years. Lacks substantial RS coverage. Merger was suggested over 2 years ago, but nothing transpired. Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the information for the guitar is already available in Jackson Dinky, and I couldn't find any other sources of info for this one.--Stvfetterly (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diabologum

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

Don't see how this is a notable band; was PRODded in 2007 for lack of notability, but someone contested it. I don't speak French, which may be part of the problem, but I can't find anything approaching significant coverage The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only possible wp:notability related reference given is an interview which is in a web site. The other references are their own pages, and the web site of their successor band. North8000 (talk)

Diabologum was actualy a kind of "underground" band. Strange music, strange use of the French languague. They sold few records, but they printed their path into French indie rock. For instance, their lone concert in 2011 was said to be a phenomenon. Google "diabologum reformation" and you'll find your coverage. Quite a big event. Sadly, only for Froggies... I translated the article only in English, and I think that's pretty sad to keep the sole French article on WP. Cheers, --JeromRP (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't speak French, so if you have something that I don't know about by all means add it. I took a listen to their music, and it was pretty neat (even if I don't know the words), so hopefully something is out there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They had an article in Les Inrockuptibles: [42], and also in fr:Chronic'art among others. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are indeed all over past issues of Les Inrockuptibles & Chronic'art; see also Libération,[43] Billboard,[44] more. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be plenty of references out there, though mainly in French (I'd add some references to the article myself if my French was a little less rusty). In any case, enough to indicate notability, even if the article doesn't currently reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausness (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FilesAnywhere

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

Extensive unsourced claims of notability (first, popular), tagged for a long time without resolution of concerns about tone and lack of citations. DMacks (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per this PC Magazine review, this book coverage, this journal coverage, and this book coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close – The nomination doesn't include a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is the solution for this article. Sources are available; I've added those listed by User:SL93 above to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pool

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

Article reads like a resume and doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Mr. Pool had his 15 minutes of limelight back in November. The media hype about him has since ended as has notable coverage. An obscure, minor element of the Occupy Movement, Mr. Pool's coverage via Ustream (a website with thousands of users), is interesting but no less notable than the hundreds of iPhone videos taken by other young protesters across America. It simply doesn't merit its own article. Wikipedia is not a Who's Who. Thanks-- Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's still doing what he made the news for less than two months ago, It could use a rewrite but that's not reason to delete. Google his name and you will see him profiled in TIME Magazine, MSNBC, Fast Company as well as television stations. The people who shoot most iPhone videos don't have this coverage. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- He just went on RT, and his footage of NYE was just picked up by NBC universal and all of its affiliates. You need to do research before making claims about 15 minutes. The story on OccuCopter is on RT, BusinessInsider, and the Guardian. I think when someone is in international news for over 3 months it qualifies as a bit more than "15 minutes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.7.97 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (TIME person of the year featured, important figure who "revitalized the movement") The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (First person to report a major event LIVE via cell phone). The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (His coverage of N17 and the 21 hours of the raid are covered by hundreds of outlets). The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I didnt even mention how he created a livestreaming drone the OccuCopter for which he goes on tv about!!! 50.14.68.230 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--He wasn't the first person to record the event via cell phone. He is yet to be cited by "peers" or "colleagues". The OccuCopter drone is yet to become a revolutionary or conventional method. The use of his coverage has nothing to do with your second point. While he has garnered attention from multiple reliable sources, apart from Time magazine (he wasn't person of the year) and a few others media focus was highest two months ago. Many of the hundred of outlets are news blogs which have questionable reliability. I was of course being figurative when I said "15 minutes". Mr. Pool doesn't fill criteria (a)-(d).

I think this comes down to the question: "What qualifies as notable?" I create pages on war heroes who changed the course of history. These people have extensive documentation and accounts in libraries across America and the world. When I see an article about Tim Pool, who's documentation is limited to media coverage and news blogs, I cannot help but wonder what notability means. Do people become notable through significant, impactful achievements documented and analyzed by academia, or do they acquire notability by "going on TV" and receiving limited attention from magazines/news blogs? (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

By your own logic you admit this is a selective enforcement. You neglect other pages like "Jesse Lagreca" who has no accomplishments at all other than TV coverage, where as Tim Pool was featured in TIME's person of the year for a 21 hour live broadcast via a cell phone. Not only has Tim garnered international notability, he is giving lectures at colleges and conventions. You need to do research, clearly you are the only one making claims against the merit of this article. At which point it would be ethical that you, as the person who nominated this page for deletion, stop responding to comments and allow a discussion to carry on. In response to your comment;

Keep - Jay Rosen and Greg Mitchell qualify as peers. http://pressthink.org/2011/11/occupy-pressthink-tim-pool/ http://www.thenation.com/blog/165460/occupyusa-blog-thursday-jan-5-frequent-updates Greg mitchell uses Tim Pool as a primary source and also cites his work. Also this article just came out today http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/occupy-drones/

I admitted no such thing. This is not a selective enforcement. I am not making claims because I have some "bias". How dare you accuse me of having an agenda and claim I cannot debate. I was unaware of pages like "Jesse Lagreca"; if I found such an article I would treat it accordingly. Your personal attack against me is ludicrous. Have the decency to sign your name--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - over 1 million live viewers and over 4 million unique hits constitutes notability http://www.ustream.tv/theother99 Tim Pool's contributions and international fame are much more notable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Brolsma yet I do not see Wikipedian taking these pages up for deletion. Selective enforcement is bias and unethical Sx91 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you declaring that I have an agenda? When have I revealed this? This absurd string of personal attacks must stop--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Snow Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources equates to topic notability. See sources listed above by User:Disneyfreak96 for some of them. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 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 Deleted as A10 duplicate. Closing AFD. Will set redirect as reasonable serach term.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Island (2012 movie)

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

This article has several problems with it. The problems are stated here:

There are no references cited
The page is an orphan
The introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject
The lead section does not adequately summarize its contents

Also, this page provides no information about when it will be released, or what production company it's coming from. —JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 00:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as A10 speediable duplicate of existing article without much a page history. Copies existing (and improvable) Treasure Island (2012 TV miniseries). Even the sparse stub as originally nominated offered enough information for searches to easily ascertain that it aired January 1, 2012 in the UK... leading me to the existing article on the mini-series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just tagged the aricle as A10 speediable.[45] We don't need this AFD. After deletion, if someone wishes to set a redirect to Treasure Island (2012 TV miniseries), fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 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 Rename to List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act and expand.. v/r - T P 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations that support the Stop Online Piracy Act

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

A list of supporters of a US House bill that hasn't even made it out of committee yet is far from notable. There are literally thousands of bills proposed in the US every year. Only a few, like SOPA, will acheive notability prior to becoming law -- but as far as I can tell, no other proposed bill on Wikipedia has ever generated a standalone "list of supporters." Obviously, most bills will have supporters and opponents. There is nothing in the article to suggest why this particular bill's supporters merit a separate article. Hartboy (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's already a substantial section in Stop Online Piracy Act. Better to just add the list's ext. link in that article for anybody who's that interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced list for a hot-button current events topic. I'm not against political action against enemies of freedom, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. This is a de facto blacklist... Carrite (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article in its current state has had several new sources added to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unsourced. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely unsourced with a tinge of NPOV violation as no article exists for organizations that oppose the act. I support taking action against these companies, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Furthermore, the constantly changing nature of this topic makes information extremely difficult to verify correctly. Marlith (Talk) 04:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is sourced at this time, per the references section of the article:

Smith, Lamar. "List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act". House Judiciary Committee. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
McCullagh, Declan. "GoDaddy bows to boycott, now 'opposes' SOPA copyright bill". CBS Interactive, Inc. (CNET). Retrieved 29 December 2011.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A focused list article that is now sourced, and more can be added. This is a reasonable content fork from the Stop Online Piracy Act article, and many of the companies and organizations in the List of organizations that support the Stop Online Piracy Act article are not included in the "Stop Online Piracy Act" article. This article needs more citations, cleanup, and likely some copy-editing. Adding rescue tag. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stop Online Privacy Act...seems the most logical thing to do Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although a hot-button topic, moving for the whole list to be deleted instead of merged strikes me as a one-sided opinion on the matter. Wikipedia info should always be taken with a grain of salt, and I fail to see why the list should be deleted because "constantly changing nature of this topic makes information extremely difficult to verify correctly". By that standard, there are MANY pages that would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.24.248 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:PRESERVE, a section within Wikipedia:Editing policy. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and probably impossible to source. This is a current event and organisation may give or withdraw their support as the political tides ebb and flow. Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This list satisfies none of these. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article has a link to an official government list[46], but there's no reason to copy it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article's sourcing has been expanded as of this post. This article is clearly possible to source, contrary to the !vote to delete above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a link in the main article to the sole source that this article is based on is sufficient. This article is going to get stale really quickly and updates are most likely to be original research. RadioFan (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All information can be very easily confirmed. Obviously the government would have this listed somewhere, and someone has found and linked to the PDF [47] in the article already. Its easier to sort through the information on Wikipedia than have to deal with a PDF. Here you can read the names, and click on them to see their Wikipedia articles. The main article is too long, so having this list as a separate article makes perfect sense. As for the ones that are listed as having removed their names from the support, its not that difficult to Google news search to confirm this and add references. I'll go work on that now. Dream Focus 08:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a section in the real fucking article. --74.111.185.203 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article doesn't list all the organizations though. Its important to have a complete list. Dream Focus 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion that a list like this is "important" or not does not entail notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. The fact remains that this is a list of supporters for proposed US legislation, referring to a bill that has not even made it out of committee for one chamber of Congress no less. There are thousands of bills proposed every year in the US, making any one proposed bill a run-of-the-mill event and presumed not notable. What's more, as far as I can tell, no other legislation, proposed or enacted, has a similar 'list of supporters' on Wikipedia. What makes a list of supporters for this bill the exception? Hartboy (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the massive amount of media coverage of course. Dream Focus 06:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this feels more like directory than encyclopedic information. Where there is a single source that already lists the organizations, we should simply link to that. However, I disagree with those who claim that the article is NPOV or entails advocacy. While some may use it for advocacy, that is not our problem. And while it is NPOV to have a list for only one side, that is solvable by creating a second article (which I think would also be a bad idea). Ma^t_chups 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. If we can delete the actual organizations as well, so much the better.[reply]
Rename to "List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act" and expand to include organizations that oppose it. As others have said, there are sufficient sources for the list, and it is notable. Including opposing organizations in the list gets rid of the POV issues. MarkGyver (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support this. Of course we will need to find a reliable source for the organizations that oppose SOPA, and maybe changing the headings "Removed Organisations" to a sub-heading for each group which supports and opposes SOPA. 86.184.38.225 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did find three big companies(Google, Twitter, Facebook) that opposed it, that were never on the list, and added them with references, but then an IP address removed that. I support renaming the list and adding them back in. [48] Dream Focus 23:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this list was for those that supported it, rather than those that opposed it. Timeoin (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we are discussing changing the name. No sense just showing one side. Dream Focus 16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Support renaming to List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act. Here's an entry that could be added to such an article:

Wikipedia (Community) – (Opposes the Act) (Quote from CBS News source below: "Calling it a "decision of the Wikipedia community," Wales said he plans to join other Web sites in ceasing operations to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, a controversial antipiracy bill being debated in Congress.")^[7]^[8]

^ Casad, Joe (2009). "Ikiwiki" (pdf). Ubuntu User (2). Linux New Media: 49–51. (subscription required)
^ Urban, Josef; Alama, Jesse; Rudnicki, Piotr; Geuvers, Herman (2010). "A Wiki for Mizar: Motivation, Considerations, and Initial Prototype". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6167: 455–469. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14128-7_38. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
^ Alama, Jesse; Brink, Kasper; Mamane, Lionel; Urban, Josef (2011). "Large Formal Wikis: Issues and Solutions". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6824: 133–148. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22673-1_10. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
^ Salnikova, E.E.; Salnikov, S.A.; Kuznetsov, S.D. (2009). "Управление контентом в крупных научно-технологических Internet-библиотеках" [Content Management in Large Technological Internet Libraries] (PDF). Труды RCDL (in Russian): 193–199.
^ Kleinman, Sam (2010-03-23). "Create a Wiki with Ikiwiki on Fedora 12". Linode. Retrieved 2012-01-03.
^ Seigo, Aaron J. (2011-05-10). "another git wiki: ikiwiki". personal blog. Retrieved 2012-01-10.
^ Musil, Steven (January 16, 2012). "Wikipedia to join Web blackout protesting SOPA". CBS News. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ Rainey, James (January 16, 2012). "Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA progress in Congress". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP/RENAME this issue is too politically charged for deletion of this article to not be a political act, and the SOPA article DOES NOT contain a list of supporters. (Drn8 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Rename and expand per MarkGyver's suggestion, as a spinoff list from the main article per WP:SS. The topic of opposition or support to this bill is notable enough, as seen through the media coverage. Sandstein 09:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory without any real editorial analysis. Mt king ^(edits) 04:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a significant lede section, which provides context. Perhaps more information could be incorporated into the lede about the various organizations on the list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or rename and expand per MarkGyver's suggestions. -Mardus (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A sourced and fairly appropriate sub-article of the one for SOPA. The fact that the list is coming from only one source is a bit questionable, but the list itself has seen some secondary coverage e.g.: [49]. There are some additional sources for this type of material that have received secondary coverage. I've added them to the article's talk page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extensive policy violations. As an ongoing issue (and as evidenced by the GoDaddy flareup), any entries could be here today and gone tomorrow, per CURRENTEVENTS, NOTNEWS, and SOAP, especially as relating to keeping the article to list all the "bad" companies that support the bill. There's also a NOTINHERITED problem. The bill may be notable, the organizations listed as supporting are notable, but their intersection on this list is not, and a simple list is really a question of potential NOTDIRECTORY. Additionally, NOTBATTLEGROUND - if the deletion is "politically charged", then isn't its creation exactly the same? If we cannot therefore be NPOV on the matter, then there's another policy violation. Reliance on one source is also not good, and any of the real major stuff would work just as well in the company and bill articles - that's what wikilinks are for, after all. Wikipedia is here to serve an information repository, not an advocacy group, cutting-edge news agency, or Internet watchdog. MSJapan (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the eight points of WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? All of them, or just some of them? The article reads rather neutrally, simply presenting a list of organizations that have stated an official stance regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act. A very reasonable content fork from the Stop Online Piracy Act article. Perhaps this article should be expanded, to also (neutrally) include opponents, which includes the Wikipedia community (see below). (See rename comments in this AfD.) This article doesn't seem to advocate anything, it's a list article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did everyone notice the big black banner atop the Wikipedia? They are blocking out Wikipedia in protest of SOPA. This is obvious a major event, and we need an article showing who all the major players are, and what side they are on. Dream Focus 03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So because Wikipedia is protesting SOPA, we need an exhaustive list of every notable entity that has any kind of public stance on SOPA as a separate article? Not at all seeing how one necessitates the other, sorry. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIR. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of course SOPA proponents don't like the list of their allies in one place... - Skysmith (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was actually going to close it as such myself, but decided on preview to throw my opinion instead. Ok, it's sourced - but WP:NOTDIRECTORY and lots of other WP:NOT's still applies. Max Semenik (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific regarding the other WP:NOTs you're referring to? After all, it's an entire page of guidelines. Which of the eight points of WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? All of them, some of them, which ones? Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination reason is basically WP:OTHERSTUFF. The list is clearly not a directory and meets the requirements for a standalone list. Rlendog (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to either List of supporters and opposers or MarkGyver's suggested title. The SOPA issue has gained massive attention. Whether or not the bill passes, the deliberations alone would be massively notable. Full lists of supporters and opposers on something of this scale of notice, where supporters and opposers were massively noticed in world headlines (GoDaddy? Twitter? Google? Wikimedia itself?), would make it inconceivable to me to consider this list non-encyclopedic.

It's a classic use of a list article, not a directory, per WP:LIST#Purposes of lists: "may be a valuable information source". The nomination is also heavily flawed - "SOPA isn't yet a law" doesn't speak to notability of the list of bill supporters/opposers (WP:N, WP:NOTINHERITED), and "I don't know any other bills with list of supporter/opposer articles" isn't a deletion argument (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Other flaws can be fixed.

The only options left are keep or merge and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE makes clear where a section would be so long as to unbalance an article, or form a useful article in its own subtopic right, a subtopic is viable. For me, this meets that criterion. My only qualm is we need one for opposers (same logic) or else (better) rename to List of supporters and opposers... or MarkGyver's suggestion List of organizations with official stances... . FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I counted how many companies were on the list which is supplied as a reference and there were 138. But there are only 124 in the article. Why? Obviously the official list has been updated again. Some of those on the list aren't on either list shown on the article (i.e. Actors Equity Association). In other words this list is just wrong and could cause problems for Wikipedia. The "official" list could change at any time and I doubt if anyone is monitoring all 138 organizations. Why not just have a link in the SOPA article? We shouldn't have information that is wrong and I suppose if you're following the rules you could say it's unsourced. Tanya Stuart (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a list like this, if an entry isn't cited, feel free to tag it with {{verify source}} which looks like this ^{[verification needed]}. If appropriate, remove it (though it's best to fix if able or tag for others if not). Shouldn't be hard to check (Google: sopa COMPANYNAME support). But "some items not cited" isn't a deletion reason. Deletion is based on "can this be made into a valid list/article by our criteria", not "is it in good shape now". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, point 7, with a big dollop of WP:RECENT. Deor (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge - As it stands right now Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporters has been shortened, to create a fork for this article. Since the same hasn't been done for Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Opposition, this clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Either it needs to be made into a list of both, potentially expanded from a list to a full article on who supports and opposes and why, with a link from that article, or it needs to just be merged back in.

24.11.87.186 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename with MarkGyver's suggested title. Then improve the article with better sourcing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Casad, Joe (2009). "Ikiwiki" (pdf). Ubuntu User (2). Linux New Media: 49–51. (subscription required)

[2] Urban, Josef; Alama, Jesse; Rudnicki, Piotr; Geuvers, Herman (2010). "A Wiki for Mizar: Motivation, Considerations, and Initial Prototype". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6167: 455–469. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14128-7_38. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

[3] Alama, Jesse; Brink, Kasper; Mamane, Lionel; Urban, Josef (2011). "Large Formal Wikis: Issues and Solutions". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6824: 133–148. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22673-1_10. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

[4] Salnikova, E.E.; Salnikov, S.A.; Kuznetsov, S.D. (2009). "Управление контентом в крупных научно-технологических Internet-библиотеках" [Content Management in Large Technological Internet Libraries] (PDF). Труды RCDL (in Russian): 193–199.

[5] Kleinman, Sam (2010-03-23). "Create a Wiki with Ikiwiki on Fedora 12". Linode. Retrieved 2012-01-03.

[6] Seigo, Aaron J. (2011-05-10). "another git wiki: ikiwiki". personal blog. Retrieved 2012-01-10.

[7] Musil, Steven (January 16, 2012). "Wikipedia to join Web blackout protesting SOPA". CBS News. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[8] Rainey, James (January 16, 2012). "Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA progress in Congress". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]