Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 January	8 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. Sandstein 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salwa al Mutairi

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

Negative BLP that only cites one news occurrence, contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS Zzarch (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ostensibly about a person, it is really just about one controversial thing that they advocate. This isn't an article. North8000 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, Wow!. After reading some article about her, I was left speechless. Beyond that, she is known for some statements in June 2011. There are a ton of news articles in June about her. She is mentioned in blogs after June, but I couldn't find anything that was reliable and talked about her beyond her June statements. It is clearly a case of WP:BLP1E and somebody having their 15 minutes of fame. Bgwhite (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the news, and I am just not finding sources that discuss her in any context other than this comment. She's running for office but doesn't actually hold an office, and, it seems, never has. I'm open to the possibility that there are other sources in Arabic, which I can't read, but in English, I'm not seeing the sources that would confirm notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a comment nor just a talk she is notable In Arab and the world for making weird suggestions that got media's attention even Fox channel talk about and bbc..am trying to expand the article next few days with support of sources.--Neogeolegend (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: A one-off news piece does not count as long-term enduring notability. If you wish to avoid the deletion process while constructing an article, you may do so by creating a userspace draft, but it is not in itself a rationale for keeping an article. Zzarch (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morphological computation (robotics)

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

The main issues are listed in Talk:Morphological_computation_(robotics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakila (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy close and invite Kakila (talk · contribs) to have another go at nominating it. --Northernhenge (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Fixed already Northernhenge (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read the whole article carefully. Despite being technical sounding, it is a lot of vague hype and nothingness. It does nothing to either detail or explain the supposed topic. The references are very limited, the most prevalent author is the very person being promoted in the article. The newest reference is 5 years old. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 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?} 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Bhattacharjee

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. One of his films, Mujhe Jeene Do, is notable, he himself is not. Since the film article does not contain significant information on Bhattacharjee (none with reliable sources, that is), a redirect would not be helpful. Huon (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do respect your comments regarding Moni Bhattacharjee however in bulk reviewing you didn't check it properly in Moni Bhattacharjee article has citations are satisfying the secondary sources policy in Wikipedia, look you are agreed on the point that his one movie is very notable and its logical thing that if his movies are notable so does he, its not only one movie he has more than 6 biggest movies as he is director of nineties and he was very well known and notable personality of his time as he was in nineties therefore its hard to find information on internet however I am working on it as soon as I find I will upload it therefore deleting of article is not a good solution therefore it ought to improve rather deleting. --Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE in that his works have notability through commentary and review. For example, his work Mujhe Jeene Do has a quite in-depth review and commentary in The Hindu, and his works have analysis and comentary in multiple books. And beyond WP:CREATIVE, he meets WP:ANYBIO for his 1964 Palme d'Or nomination at Cannes Film Festival. We have enough available to show notability, even if it was 40+ years ago. Notability is not temporary and we do not expect ongoing modern coverage for a respected filmmaker whose last production was in 1968. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability sure isn't temporary, but it isn't inherited either. My understanding was that winning an award counted as "winning significant critical attention" per WP:CREATIVE while a nomination did not. But even if he scraped by WP:CREATIVE on that account, he still fails the general notability guideline, and I don't see how we have enough secondary sources about him to write anything beyond a stub. For example, I cannot even tell whether he's still alive or when he was born. Since we don't expect new coverage, this won't get better. Huon (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The the essence of WP:NTEMP is that Wikipedia accepts that a person who was notable in India 40 to 50 years before the internet does not need ongoing modern coverage. That prior notability is found in that he and his works are spoken of in a more-than-trivial manner in books (pinging the GNG) as the coverage is NOT trivial and his accomplishments have made it into the enduring historical record. Further, we cannot dismiss that in his easily meeting WP:CREATIVE (not just "scraping by") in that his works also have coverage exceeding the GNG. But what is also cogent is that the GNG is not the sole determinant of notability... just the easiest to argue. And please note the essay WP:INHERITED deals more with familial relationships and not creative endeavours. If I were to argue that WP:ANYBIO could be ignored because it encourages notability-by-association with an award, I would be laughed off the project. What we have here is a reasonable preumption, supported by archived coverage of his works in newspapers and of himself & works in books (even if all 50-year-old India newspapers are not available online), is verifiability that the made made his mark and received recognition for his creative efforts. It does not matter if the stub does not show if he is dead or simply retired. It does not mater that the stub does not share personal information about the man. THOSE facts are not the assertions of notability. And stubs are always welcome... even if they may never be more than a stub. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed that he was notable 40 years ago. Which books speak of him? The article does not mention any. Bhattacharjee does not fulfil the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO because for all I can tell he neither won any awards nor was he nominated multiple times. Whether his work is "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is at best debatable when all we have are two decades-old film reviews. If that were to count, any director of every film which was reviewed would become notable, which is absurd. Could you please elaborate what books write about him and how he satisfies WP:ANYBIO? If you know sources not currently mentioned in the article, please add them. Huon (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were offered above and they need not BE in the article to show notability.... and as for Indian-language sources for a filmmaker whose works predated the internet by nearly half a century, I'll await input from editors more able than you or me to offer input on hardcopy sources for pre-internet Indian film notables. And even though we do have enough sources now, WP:NTEMP explains that sources do not have to remain forever available. Bhattacharjee and his works receiving more-than-trivial analysis and commentary even in existing media and books is enough evidence of a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" for me. And available sources aside, is it your opinion, that an Indian filmmaker being nominated for a Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival in 1964 would never have caught the attention of media in 1964 India? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am 50/50 on this one right now but have asked for input from the India Project. Indian cinema is huge and a lot of people involved in it are not notable even though the films to which they are connected may be. On the other hand, I have a gut feeling that there are unplumbed depths here, in part precisely because the subject area is so big and there is a tendency of modern contributors to this sphere of India-related articles to concentrate on the stars of today rather than of yesteryear. Add to that the very significant issue of systemic bias in this area, I think that we should at least keep things in proportion until some people with more chance of doing some sourcing actually do take a look. If that means extending the usual AfD period by an additional few days then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reason of Systemic Bias. A director with a classic success and a Cannes entry is notable enough in Indian cinema. He has had such a hit, people will want to read about him. If he had neither the hit nor the Cannes nomination, one would unhesitatingly hurry to delete the article. Western standards of notability should not be applied to delete articles on Indian topics which are just about notable. AshLin (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Director of at least three notable movies (Mujhe Jeene Do, Jaal, Baazi), and assistant director of one of the most memorable movies of Hindi Film Industry (Do Bigha Zameen). --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if needed, I'll find sources myself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is needed. This is exactly the problem: from the perspective of someone in Europe, I can't find sources for substantiate notability but (as I said above) I have a gut feeling that they exist and this is a systemic bias issue. Go do that thing ;) Sitush (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction (UK)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was a horror director called Luigi Cozzi who went by the name Lewis Coates, but this doesn't seem to be connected. 86.146.221.44 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may or may not be something by Italian Luigi Cozzi,[1] as he does direct low-budget horror films. Set in Ipswitch, the film appears to exist and can be watched online.[2] No matter who may have directed or not, it does not seem to have received any coverage or awards and so fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 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) 15:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Miller (painter)

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

Prod tag was removed after adding a single link to an article in a local weekly news mag more about allegedly being censored than any alleged noteworthy achievements. To get an article in Wikipedia for an artist there needs to be more than local coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What was added isn't even an article but an interview. Fails WP:GNG. Huon (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In Montreal, Quebec, and perhaps much of Canada, it would appear as though the most popular painting genre in terms of gallery sales/exhibition is mainstream decorative art. For the most part, abstract or landscape. Galleries that exhibit figurative works are few and far between, and in those, you'll most likely find more expressionist figurative works as opposed to, say, classic figurative realism. Gallery curators justifiably recognize that it's typically not a good business practice to exhibit works that antagonize or alienate their customer base. As such, they typically don't, and consequently, mainstream media doesn't go out of its way to promote controversial work that is not found for sale in mainstream galleries. After all, from a business perspective, what would be the upside? Many people are uncomfortable when confronted with criticism of their religion or collective behavior (politics). It turns them off. - Coming across contemporary realism expressing social commentary/criticism in the mainstream fine art world is rare. In Canada, perhaps even, non-existent. How many contemporary critical realists can you think of? The American painter Max Ginsburg is a good example but his works, however beautiful, are not overly controversial; certainly not to the extent that those who take offense to certain images or ideas would call (label) them offensive or disturbing. - Asking ourselves, does the article, James Miller (Painter), diminish the value of (or SPAM) Wikipedia? It's not clear to me that it does. - If one were to search for articles on contemporary social commentary/criticism in painting, might this article potentially be of any value? Would it be relevant? I believe it likely would be. - In that contentious, politically incorrect, not-for-profit artwork, regardless of workmanship, is not likely to be embraced or promoted by for-profit industry and media, how might we reasonably expect it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion? - Would the intent of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines truly be fulfilled by excluding this article? Not in my opinion.- Would Wikipedia, in excluding this article, effectively be brushing honest, perhaps insightful, social commentary under the rug, because ultimately, it's not profitable for the industry to promote or recognize it? Effectively, yes. - I believe that this article is an exception to the rule and should not be removed. Bokomaru (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to do a Google search, since the name's so common; but trying his name (both as "James" and as "Jamie") in combination with various keywords from the article and the Montreal Review piece didn't yield any evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. My searches turned up his website and the MR article often enough to persuade me that if there was such coverage, I'd have found it. Fails WP:GNG. The criteria at WP:ARTIST seem even stricter; the subject definitely doesn't seem to meet them. Ammodramus (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Delete.Google isn't reliable for searches of newspaper/ art journal coverage pre late 1990's,that being said,if no other verifiable and reliable third party discussion of this artwork can be sourced,delete, Bokomaru's argument of political relevance although of interest isn't neutral=WP:NOT, if it is just unreliably sourced opinion. Euartcurator (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Miller began painting in 2004, so I don't think we're missing any pre-Google coverage re. his art. Ammodramus (talk) 16:17, 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) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trays

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

Uncited material since Feb 2007. Borders on WP:OR. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 20:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like original research with no indication of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. "Trays" is the plural of "tray". Therefore, if the word "trays" has no distinctive meaning of its own to override the meaning "plural of tray", it should be redirected to Tray. There is no case for deletion. -- Oliver P. (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. No redirect is needed. Edison (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research or hoax. No reliable sources. Redirect to "tray" is unnecessary since it's a regular plural, and "trays" is not so commonly used that people would be inclined to search for the plural instead of the singular. Huon (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Drifting as the effect of traying is similar to drifting, and the term "drifting" is used seven times in Trays. Delete. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is nothing to merge; the entire article is unsourced. Its only "reference" is our own Drifting article. Huon (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, and they also speak ambiguously by saying "many teenagers and young adults have tried to imitate the stunt." I changed my vote. If merged with Drifting, they would STILL have to verify and reference it. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 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) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk (band)

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

Not notable--no record deal AFAIK, no hits, no fame, no fortune. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, cannot find any sources at all. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Band is only known because of its association/lineage to more popular bands. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Per above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lumino Magazine

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

No significant coverage found for this online magazine. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any third-party sources at all; not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable third sources Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Gongshow ^Talk 02:37, 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. Reliable sources were added to the article, thus the delete !votes over the lack of them in the article are refutted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haunt (video game)

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

No significant coverage found. This Xbox Live Arcade video game fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Plenty of coverage , including a preview video that has been on Xbox Live http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Haunt/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258410b34 Darwin-rover (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a video on Xbox Live for an Xbox Live video game show notability? SL93 (talk) 21:09, 8 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) 00:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every video game needs a Wikipedia article. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep - a quick Wikiproject Video games reliable sources search shows coverage at Joystiq, GameSetWatch, IGN and 1UP among others. Clearly a matter of WP:BEFORE as there's been plenty of coverage on this game. --Teancum (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tired of people pointing me and others to WP:BEFORE when I or they do search for sources. I did say that so it does make me mad. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Different Wikiprojects have their own search links that help you find sources easier. You can also try searching for the name of the company along with the name of the product, to help sort through the results and find if anyone mentioned this specifically. Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, no detail, no expressed claim of notability. WP:BEFORE works both ways. It's also incumbent on article creators to create something that at least resembles an encyclopedia article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to be included in the article to prove it is notable. Do you have a problem with the references found by Teancum? Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with them is that he hasn't added any. A vague handwave "Oh there will be references" and name-checking a few web sites that cover the broad topic of gaming is not providing a reference for this topic, that demonstrates significant coverage of it.

In particular, the only detail provided so far "it will be available in late 2011" is clearly both a fail of WP:CRYSTAL when it was added and is now simply obsolete. If this assumption turned out to be correct, then there should be reviews aplenty by now. There are none referenced here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V now that sources have been identified, it is not required to add them in terms of evaluating for notability (assuming there's agreement the sources are helping to assert notability). Yes, they should be added in time but doesn't need it this moment.

Also, while yes, the game was planned to be released in 2011, and that hasn't happened, that doesn't mean there's a failing of CRYSTAL. The sources found point to a late 2011 release, but no source has seem to update that, so that's the best measure of when the game's release is. Since it is announced in that manner by reliable sources, it does not fail the CRYSTAL. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have still not been added. Naming a few games magazines is not the same thing as adding a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Teancum has found reliable sources giving significant coverage of this game, such as this one [3]. Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article should show notability. Without sources that it really exists, I should even consider is as promo or a hoax. BTW: for a strange reason a Google News search never ever finds anything. I have not a clue why. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, articles should show notability, and before this AFD, there wasn't any. Sources have been IDd now, [4], but as per WP:V/WP:N, don't have to be included to show notability. (They should be included at some point, yes.). --MASEM (t) 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There you point on one of the biggest blunders of Wikipedia. If an article should be properly sourced to proof notability, it is a bit strange that sometimes it is good enough to just know that sources exist. But is editor P says that a source exists, how can editor Q verifies its content or even existence? It is a conflict that should be dealt with soon. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Blunder though it may be, it is what we do (per WP:N and WP:DEL). If the lack of sources in the article offends so much, please feel free to fix. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though a game with some but very limited coverage like this one by known developers will ultimately get an article, the limited information suggests merging to a developer's article as a pending work -- however, with the split developer aspect, this is not practical. Thus the article as a stub should remain. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic has been shown to meet WP:N. No real objection to a merge if a good target can be found. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been added. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been added.

There is one edit to this article since the AfD. It added a formatted infobox and it also changed the evidently incorrect claim that the game was released last year into a WP:CRYSTAL claim that it would be released in January. There is still no sourcing for anything in this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - expanded the article with seven references from reliable sources to demonstrate notability. While it'll be difficult to get it past a start class, it still passes WP:N. --Teancum (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is sufficient coverage out there in the sources shown above, which can be easily added in. --MuZemike 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the now-added sources. Gongshow ^Talk 02:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Enough sources have been provided to establish notability. Game-Guru999 (talk) 14:36, 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?} 15:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Knuckles

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

Is this really notable? If it is, it at least needs a major rewrite perhaps from a child dev. perspective. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As strange as this game seems, there are two sources which seem to establish some level of notability.
Weak keep - as per above. There are reliable sources quoted enough to establish the notability of the game. It might not rise any further but there is enough for it to stay. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Penny

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

Never played or managed at a fully-pro level, so fails WP:FOOTYN, no evidence of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:23, 7 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 7. Snotbot t • c » 18:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No professional appearances, so fails WP:FOOTYN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who? WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete - many players on wiki have just non league careers, but do not have the professional coaching level like penny, and the article doesnt claim he did play pro football. he has coached at a fully professional level and developed many of the youth players in league football today. Published author of football books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.86.230 (talk • contribs) — 82.33.86.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP (Proven professional record - has coached at fully pro level, article does not claim to be pro player) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.86.230 (talk • contribs) — 82.33.86.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete - as stated above, this article fails WP:GNG, and since Penny has not played or managed in a fully pro league, fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:35, 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 1983 Grand Prix (tennis). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrara Open

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

Non-notable tennis competition which only ran once. I cannot find any sources at all, never mind anything that could establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability. So, ONE tournament with no real notable tennis players for a tennis circuit that doesn't even mention Ferrara??? — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that this event was hardly as significant as other major tennis events, but it was part of the Grand Prix tennis circuit and is counted on the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) web site, which I included as a source when creating this article. Additionally, I created this article as part of the effort of fulfilling one of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis, which is to "Create articles for every tennis tournament for male and female players, especially since the beginning of the Open Era, including yearly articles and draws." For these reasons, I feel that this article should be maintained. User:Alexk785 (talk)

But If it's only ran once create the year and redirect Ferrera Open to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.193.152 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I can find no coverage about this tournament at all that would establish notability. All we have at this point is verification of existence. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 1983 Grand Prix (tennis). On second thought, the circuit is notable, and the material is verifiable and could serve to flesh out the rather sparse 1983 article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge on that rationale. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yendri

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

Non-notable person (musician). Does not meet any of the WP:BAND criteria (for composers nor musicians). I did some extensive Googling for third-party references and found one album review by a non-notable online "publication". The only other items were typical artist-related profile sites, and a few archived forum posts asking whether she was a man or not. bllix (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:31, 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, Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 17:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only WP:BAND criteria that the subject even comes within a mile of is "releasing two or more albums on an important indie label". While a couple of the other bands on Mental Ulcer Forges do have their own articles so are presumably notable (though that might need to be looked at...), it doesn't seem anything like enough for them to be considered a respected indie label. Given that the subject is German I suppose it is possible that there are some German language sources that aren't coming up in Google searches but absent any new info I can't see any reason to not delete it Robinr22 (talk) 18:06, 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. Jujutacular ^talk 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ReUse Connection

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

Not notable. All the links are either blogs, don't mention or imply them by name, or are unreliable in some other way. While perhaps well meaning, it is bordering on advertising. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, the following references are "reliable":

a. Moorhouse, Ellen (2010). Trash Talk: Are those old videos just garbage?. yourhome.caYourhome.ca/ (A Toronto Star newspaper blog). Ellen Moorhouse was Editor in various departments of the Toronto Star, from October 1983 to December 2004 (21 years 3 months). During this time her various responsibilities, included: assistant business editor responsible for the Sunday business section; editorial board editor responsible for op-ed and editorial pages in the Saturday and Sunday Star, and real estate editor in charge of two weekly real estate sections. She has been writing the “Trash Talk” column for the Toronto Star’s ‘yourhome.ca’ blog since approximately April 2009 (oldest Trash Talk article I found: http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/622811--trash-talk-don-t-chuck-it-use-it). According to Jennifer Wilson, Editor of the Toronto Star, "Ellen Moorhouse is a professional journalist. . . Yourhome.ca is not considered a blog, but a full-fledged site under the Toronto Star’s umbrella, and therefore fall under the same journalistic standards."

b. Wasson, Julia (2010). ReUse Connection – Ideas for Repurposing, Freely Shared. Blue Planet Green Living Julia Wasson has a distinguished career in marketing, publishing, writing, and editing. She and Blue Planet Green Living have already been cited as a refernce for a Wikipedia article. See reference #1 at: Harvard "Pete" Palmer, Jr. ("Donate Vehicle—Help Charity—Get Tax Deduction," www.blueplanetgreenliving.com, November 11, 2009, by Julia Wasson).

c. Tottleben, Cy (2010). The ReUse Connection: Keeping material out of the landfill. Mother Nature Network. Cy Tottleben, according to MNN.com (a blog that has its own Wikipedia page - Mother Nature Network), graduated from Indiana University with a BA in history. Cy has spent the past 20 years educating others on the three R’s — reusing, reducing and recycling, which has earned her the nickname of "The Crazy Recycling Lady." Her current project is affecting change in her business by greening her store and spreading these practices throughout the corporation. (See: http://www.mnn.com/users/ctottleben).

d. Grover, Sami (2010). [Reuse Community Takes Facebook By Storm - With More to Come]. TreeHugger. Treehugger is the number 1 environmental blog on the web and has a Wikipedia article (TreeHugger). Sami Grover has been a writer for TreeHugger since 2007. He has worked in academic publishing, specializing in issues related to sustainability. He has been published in Permaculture Magazine. Sami is the co-creative director at The Change Creation. (See: http://www.treehugger.com/author/sami-grover/). :Other publications by Sami Grover include: (2007). Rob Hopkins on Transition Culture, Positive News, and others listed on http://planetgreen.discovery.com/author/sami-grover/.

Ginalizardi (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 17:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I came to the same conclusions as the nominator. Essentially, this subject doesn't have in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Sources that I found include blogs (good for some information but shouldn't be the basis of notability), trivial coverage, and press releases, much in the way the article is currently sourced. The subject fails WP:ORG (WP:CORPDEPTH) and lacks WP:BASIC features of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 21:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The above call for deletion states that the article does not have: 1) in-depth coverage by 2) multiple reliable sources [that are] 3) independent of the subject. In addition, it states that the coverage is 4) trivial and [includes] 5) press releases.

The coverage is “in-depth” -- In every article cited, ReUse Connection is the main topic and the activities of the site are described.
The four sources cited above are very “reliable” (several have been used as sources for other Wikipedia articles) -- The articles cited were written for publications with journalistic integrity and by writers with a history of covering sustainability that are considered mavens in their fields.
All sources cited are independent -- They are all 3rd parties and chose to write articles for their publications and their readers. You can verify that by emailing them. I actually reached out to the editorial department at the Toronto Starto verify the journalistic integrity of the article.
The coverage is non-trivial -- I read the description under “depth of coverage” in notability guidelines and none of the sources cited are in the list of trivial sources. I have seen several approved references cited on Wikipedia where the entity is mentioned in passing (see Inhabitat), making it trivial. In ReUse Connection’s case, the articles were written about the website as journalism.
Not a single source cited was a press release -- I am not sure where this claim came from. In fact, in all of my research, I have not found one press release issued by ReUse Connection.

Ginalizardi (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)— Ginalizardi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comparing to other articles is not a rationale to keep. Actual, keeping isn't a matter of rationale, it is a matter of criteria. Having a long list of references is meaningless if they are blogs. The fact that other articles may use the same blogs as references doesn't mean they are ok, it means that no one has bothered to remove them from those articles yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline speedy delete, CSD-G11 & A7. I recognise that the website is probably doing excellent work to promote recycling, but there is no evidence of notability here. References supplied are blogs and cannot be considered reliable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The yourhome.ca is actually the Toronto Star newspaper, so it is a reliable source under editorial control. However, the other sources are bit more dubious. In total, the coverage presented is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment - Whpq, thank you for finally recognizing that the Toronto Star is a reliable source. I have spent 13 days trying to explain this to your fellow editors! The article has been slightly modified and proper references have been included (articles printed in the actual/printed magazines Natural Life and Political Themata [in Greek]).

Natural Life has both printed and online versions of its magazine. Political Themata does not have an online presence but it featured a four-page article on ReUse Connection that originally sold on Greek newsstands and in Greek bookstores. The article was deemed reliable enough to be picked up and reprinted in a separate, online publication (independent of Political Themata), as referenced.

If these, combined with the Toronto article and the many blog articles (there are probably 20 more I did not list) are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's criteria, then I raise the white flag. . . Ginalizardi (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite a lot of pro-keep tl;dr on this page, I still don't see a single seriously reliable source to conffirm its notability. Max Semenik (talk) 09:50, 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. Michig (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GUSIF

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

Non-notable student club. No sources to indicate notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a university investment club that has a "references" section containing exactly zero references. Article states that the club has $370,000 in assets (nice for a student club) and 70 employees (absurd). Show me significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I will change my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 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, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Other than an article in the Georgetown student newspaper, some facebook/linkedin profiles and a few press releases I can't find anything about this at all. Therefore it doesn't seem notable to me, even if the parent university obviously is. Robinr22 (talk) 18:14, 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 Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Me (2005 film)

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

~~I found nothing that shows notability for this film. The only source in the article is the official website. Fails WP:NF.~~ SL93 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. The film is sourcable as having aired on Channel 4, [5][6] and I quickly found coverage in The Guardian, [7] and weaker ones in Paste Magazine, [8], NPR,[9] and a few others. Nice that years after its original screening, the film still receives some coverage as I did not expect continued coverage for this 2005 documentary short. Article now being improved through regular editing... so far turning the nominated stub into THIS. Is this the most notable documentary ever? Nope. Does it meet WP:NF through sourcable coverage and review? I think yes... just. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to withdraw if Lugnuts changes from delete to keep. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep following the excellent work done by Michael. Lugnuts (talk) 07:39, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tel-O-Fun

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

notability? Steinhfer (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:OTHERSTUFF of Category:Community bicycle programs. I think on a whole these ventures are worthy of articles in each separate city. Green, environment, community sharing, etc... --Shuki (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The convention seems to be that these kinds of articles are kept, plus the following sources exist: [10] & [11]. Combined, that seems enough to keep the article.
Keep, perhaps speedy as the nom has given absolutely no rationale as to why this topic is not notable. The sources indicated by the unsigned ItsZippy solidifies this keep.--Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant media coverage. Marokwitz (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close – AfD is not cleanup. The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator hasn't advanced a policy-based assertion why this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Georgetown University#Media. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Television

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

Student run television channel that appears only on campus closed-circuit television and teh internets. No third party sources, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is similar to a campus newspaper in determining notability, or other media sources with limited distribution. So while sources might be an issue, the distribution isn't.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, because there are not sufficient independent sources to establish notability, are you in favor of deletion?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I've just had trouble with the argument against the notability of media outlets that by their definition has a limited circulation.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. This is just an average non-notable student television station. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgetown University#Media where there is already info about the station. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgetown_University#Media per WP:Retain --Guerillero | My Talk 02:27, 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. Michig (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Cloud

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

No reason why this software platform is notable is stated in article or could be found. Couldn't find significant independent coverage of this platform. Of the 3 references, it appears two relate to concepts peripheral to the subject and not the subject itself. The third is a press release from the organisation funding the product. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another software platform for the building of Cloud infrastructures within a Service Provider advertising on Wikipedia. Upper case is for proper names. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:03, 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) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BreakingPoint Systems

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

No significant claim of notability. Also appears to be WP:ARTSPAM - page creator, User:Kyleflaherty, has a vested interest - see [12] Bazonka (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the article's references, there does seem to be plenty of independent coverage. Including mentions in mainstream news sources such as the Daily Mail (the second most read English language newspaper website in the world). Pit-yacker (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claimed Daily Mail source does not appear to contain the string "BreakingPoint", and would appear to be about network security generally. The rest of the sources are press release based coverage of company-announced "breakthroughs", startup-related announcements, routine financing announcements, and petty trade awards from industry analysts. (Hint: if it says a leading network security provider and worldwide leader of unified threat management (UTM) solutions or the like, it's not an independent source.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dickinson,_Texas#Education. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article isn't warranted for this school. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True Cross Catholic School (Dickinson, Texas)

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

K-8 schools have been deemed not worthy of inclusion by precedent. Relevant merge target is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Unless reliable sources discussing the school in detail are found, merge WhisperToMe (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "True Cross Catholic School" and "Dickinson" on Google News and Google Books... I could not find anything WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep I have a problem with mass nominations that unilaterally attempt to gut a topic. This is one of dozens of Catholic or parochial schools nominated for deletion by the same editor with no attempts made to find sources or improve evident.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^^^WhisperToMe's comments^^^; also common school outcomes. Note that another editor (User:Epeefleche) is also nominating similar articles for deletion, in greater numbers (he's in the dozens, I'm at about 8) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent No proof of notability by third party sources. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to the governing body, if it is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, and this school does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, nor does it enjoy the assumption of notability afforded high schools. Any editor is welcome to find and add sources with significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. WP:ORG also calls for sources from outside the local area, a more strict requirement than WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:36, 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 ] 23:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to the Catholic District School Board, per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 9 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) 15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be snowing in Texas right now ... redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - G12 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)

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

Long-established precedent says that elementary and middle schools are not worthy of inclusion. Relevant merge target is Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:COPYVIO problems. Here, the article was tagged as a copyvio. Looking at the revision history since then, we find that the text of the body hasn't changed significantly since then Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a tricky one, as it includes both a church and primary school. Since the article title relates to the church, not the primary school, a lower notability bar is called for, in my view. The copyvio aspect, if verified, would be cause for immediate deletion of the article, of course. However, it appears that the original history from which this piece may (or may not) have been originally pulled is now down. It would take some Time Machine detective work to provide such a diff. My own inclination is to let this one stand and move along. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a feeling the sourcing can be found on this church and that is likely has historical significance. As part of a mass nomination of related articles I don't think this nomination should be given much weight as its unlikely much research into each item was done to determine the likelihood or sources or notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the best way to participate in deletion discussions. Aside from the "I have a feeling that sources exist," please read WP:ADHOM and avoid voting on the basis of a nominator's actions. St Anselm (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The precedent about the elementary/middle schools doesn't mean we automatically delete them if they pop up without looking into it. It just means that they aren't generally given the benefit of the doubt like high schools are. the e/m schools have to prove real notability. Also, like stated above, this article is more about the church than the school. If it is part of simply a mass deletion nomination, I also am a little leery of that. However, that said, I am having trouble finding third-party sources that prove notability (or any historical significance as mentioned above) for either subject. Only apparent possible claim to notability for the school is its Blue Ribbon status. Will keep looking, but I'm leaning closer to saying merge. Definitely think it needs rescue with third-party sources. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the COPYVIO concerns? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked into that, yet, since I was first trying to find 3P sources to improve the article. You're right. The history section still reads almost exactly like the church's website. Just very minor, token punctuation changes, etc. I would consider that section COPYVIO, maybe not whole article though. Taking that section out as copyvio would lend even more weight to merge/redirect -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources have been provided to satisfy WP:ORG. Several individual nominations of similar subjects are not what I think of as a "mass nomination," which would be one AFD directed at multiple articles. Churches certainly do not enjoy a presumption of notability like high schools, and most articles about individual congregations have been deleted in AFDs. Edison (talk) 21:40, 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 ] 23:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh. No claim of notability, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Primary school doesn't help provide much in the way of notability either. Blue Ribbon School title isn't very notable either as those aren't hard to come by. RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 9 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) 15:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search for "Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church" And "Raleigh" to make certain I got the right one, shows over 500 results. [13] Remove -funeral and -weddings from it, and that lowers it down to a few dozen. I don't see anything in those though other than saying people who died belonged to that church. Note that Wikipedia does NOT have precedents. Each case is different. Dream Focus 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 As some users have noted, Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)#History of church and school has been copied from the church's website with very minor changes. Most of the prose has been copied from the pages cited as refs. (The OLLS Sports site is down.) The article's creator Nctennishco12 was blocked for sockpuppetry, and the master Tarheelz123 was originally blocked for creating copyright violations. I have tagged the article CSD G12. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as G12, copyvio speedy deletion. Kindly note that AFD is precedent; WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply here, because closed AFDs are the result of consensus, not simply the creation of a single editor like random Pokémons were before they were sent to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 05:55, 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. Nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted. (Non-Administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Wearen

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

Has not made any professional appearances, so does not pass WP:FOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly has - is playing one as we speak - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16371385.stm - number 15.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I hadn't noticed the reference. As he is now playing his first professional game, he passes WP:FOOTBALL. I thus withdraw this nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2Build 4Ward International Organization

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

I found zero significant coverage for this organization. The only links in the article are unreliable - Blogspot, Facebook, and Twitter. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked and agree with nom, nothing to show notability. As a year-old, apparently all-volunteer charity, this lack of evidence is to be expected. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found two articles in the Sacremento Press: [14] and [15]. The first article is not independent as it written by a member of the organisation, and the second article is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Human Geography Data (WWHGD) Working Group

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

Unfortunately this project would appear to fail the General notability guideline. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional: If you would like to attend this meeting or learn more about the WWHGD Working Group, please go to the WWHGD website... and lacking coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Carlino

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

Barely known playwright and politician. Does not meet any notability criteria in my mind. bender235 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm coming into this with an open mind. There has been enormously heavy tagging on this one, including simultaneous speedy and AfD flags and a laundry list of style offenses. That the article is a mess is beyond doubt; however, it does appear to be to work of a new editor who is TRYING to footnote correctly about what they believe to be an encyclopedic topic, which get's my DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS blood flowing a little. Is this a single purpose COI account? Perhaps. We'll let that lie for now. As to the basic question here, that of notability: HERE is voters guide biographical info. It is essentially a textbook example of self-sourced information, but it still remains the sort of declaration "under scrutiny or oath," if you will, that should be of potential use in BLP footnoting should this close a keep. Still looking... Carrite (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a losing candidate in a city council race, pretty clearly fails the special notability guidelines for a politician. Work as a comedian seems to have escaped significant published attention, and movie industry participation also seems to not rise to the level necessary for encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I got dizzy trying to decipher the References, but Carrite is correct. Even though the article's editing is horrid, there is nothing biographically notable about Mr. Carlino. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, thank you to all those contributors who have helped clean up this submission for the John Carlino page. There are many stylistic problems with this submission but, as mentioned, it is a new submission by a newbie to Wikipedia, me. There are many persons on Wikipedia who, are or were, in the film and theatrical business. That John Carlino has well documented credits in film and theater both as an actor, writer, director and producer should satisfy any scrutiny. My hope is that monetary or popular achievement does not trump artistic achievement. I believe this submission is valid. John Carlino is an upstanding figure in Manhattan, NY film and theater and politics. The references do lean upon internet links yet many of the links referenced are actual publications. I believe as time goes on it will be much more common to have links to web based publications over brick and mortar (paper) publications. Thank you and hope all those who have contributed will consider keeping Mr. Carlino's page on Wikipedia. (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Nuance22 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage about the subject that would satisfy Wikpededia's general inclusion criteria. As a politician, the relevant guideline for inclusion for that aspect of the subject's career would be WP:POLITICIAN. I do not see that any of the inclusion criteria from that guideline are met. His work in film and comedy would need to be evaluated against WP:ENTERTAINER as the most relevant guideline. Again, I don't see any of the criteria her being met either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect per WP:BOLD and per we don't need an AFD for that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Wahab Elmessiri

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

I moved the page to Abdel Wahab El-Messiri and this page is an accident edit after the move --AbderrahmanNajjar 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Abdel Wahab El-Messiri. Pburka (talk) 16:13, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Textile Technology and Management

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

Gnews never heard of this organization. And the article itself has zero refs. This is the 2-year anniversary of it being tagged for deficiency in notability. Created by what appears to be an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ keep: This is a notable institute and has a lot of coverage in print media. Has been listed on a regularly used Pakistani education related website [16], has online media coverage [17] [18] and most importantly, has print RS coverage [19] both in Urdu and English. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, trivial passing non-substantial coverage does not confer notability status; nor does non-RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 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, BusterD (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "sources" are either listings or promotional material. Notability can't be established by this kind of material. No RS in two years.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:02, 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, Sandstein 11:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete partly on the assumption that the Keep-er above has offered the best sources he or she can. EEng (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those sources do you views as being RS sources, and of those which do you believe constitute substantial coverage of the institute? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of TopGun's sources establish notability. We have a directory listing, a blog, some sort of website where the sole content is an image that won't load, and a newspaper advert. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another RS [20] and then we have WP:NHS to consider. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq raised questions above as to whether what you cited previously as RSs were in fact RSs. What are your thoughts on that? Also, as to this reference, it appears to be a passing reference -- the institute is listed as one in a series of "affiliates". I'm not sure that adds to the requisite substantial coverage to pass GNG. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for missing that one of them was a blog. The advertisement pretty much verifies the existence of the institute which will get it quite some grounds for a 'keep' per WP:NHS and another site that is listed is one of the much referred sites for the education related information (atleast in Pakistan) and seems RS to me. The latest I added is surely a reliable newspaper(more than 70 years old) and does specifically mention the university but then again, general notability is pretty much covered in print media (which I do not have access to - so I should rather use 'highly likely' covered in print media). --lTopGunl (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to consider NHS, a non-binding and regularly disputed {{essay}}. Specifically, you need to consider its third paragraph: "However, this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically. Unreferenced material can and should be challenged up to and including removal from the article. Efforts are much better put into locating reliable sources about the school and improving the article based on those sources."

Being a school for teenagers or adults does not exempt the school from the need to have sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 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. Michig (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Haven Shopping Centre

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. run of the mill shopping centre with no coverage to reveal any notability outside the local area. Simply being the third largest in the region is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable shopping centre with no assertion of notability. The only coverage it gets is for a child being trapped inside a vending machine there. [21] Till I Go Home (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only insignificant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 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 merge with Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. The concerns about the title are of interest, but given that it has been used I see no harm in leaving a redirect behind. Much of the content is already contained in the target article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation, Verbeterde List

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

It is not clear whether this name of variation really exists, or whether it is just a name used locally in the Nederlands. Sources given are scarce and not enough to decide the name of a chess opening. SyG (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For your information, it is already internationally used, and for example the New In Chess Yearbook and Chessvibes Openings already adapted this name. That you don't know the name, says more about your knowledge of chess opening theory. Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs)

As you mention below, New In Chess is a Dutch publication, and the author who used this name in ChessVibes is Dutch as well (besides, I would not consider ChessVibes as an authoritative source anyway). It would help if some, say, UK authors or russian authors (and I am not talking about russian-born authors who are living in Nederlands, of course) or US authors would use this name in publications. SyG (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The line 6... Nbd7 has been played since the 1950s, and also during the 60s, 70s (in conjunction with ... e5), 80s, and 90s. So why is the article seeming to imply the opening is under discussion/investigation as new?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the date of the Lody Kuling game? (The article seems to be saying the opening idea was initiated by that game.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to FIDE.com and ChessGames.com, Lody Kuling was born in 1990. ChessGames has some games from 2007. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would need a lot more convincing. The wording of the wiki article as it stands is plainly wrong. Looking at some random Petrosian games in the 50s and 60s (when both he and Polugaevsky played 6 ... Nbd7 a lot) I even found one where he used this flexible move order to play e5, rather than e6, so the idea is not new, exactly. The article writer on Chessvibes is unknown to me. Lennart Ootes ... not Dutch is he? ... and New In Chess ... well I know that's a Dutch publication. Is this what Twaburov means by "internationally used"? I would be much more keen to see how Ftacnik phrases it - does he speak in terms that confirm this 'international recognition' or not? Provide his quote and I will consider retracting. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) into Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bubba73 and WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please explain your reference to NNC ? What I am discussing is whether this chess variation should really be called the Verbeterde list, or not. Where would NNC exactly apply ? SyG (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true that Nbd7 have been played in the past, but after Kleijn-Kuling (Groningen 2007), it gain a lot of popularity. The reason of this was that Lody Kuling found a very good way to meet 7.f4. When Bitalzadeh played it against Pruijssers in Wijk aan Zee in 2009, Ivanchuk was staring at the opening position for a couple of minutes, and then used The Verbeterde List himself a few months later. After Shirov-Dominguez, Wijk aan Zee 2010, black had also a good way to meet 7.Bc4, and because of that even more players started playing it. I don't know what it takes to be accepted as a name on Wikipedia, but in my opinion it is deserved to be given this name, as since Lody Kuling came up with this idea, 6..Nbd7 became hugely popular. About the references I will be honest: Ftacnik recommends 6..Nbd7 in his Najdorf book, but doesn't mention the name The Verbeterde List. The article writer of Chessvibes was Merijn van Delft, he is Dutch. He discusses my game against Lars Ootes. He uses the name The Verbeterde List. Also Ufuk Tuncer (he is Turkish) used this name in New in Chess Yearbook 101. Also I have some international friends who call this opening The Verbeterde List. Again, I don't know what it takes to be accepted as a name on Wikipedia. Maybe it helps when I write a book about it.

Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The name Verbeterde List is used in a caption in a Spanish text in this report in ChessBase News on a chess tournament played in Amsterdam: ... Lody Kulling, quien en 2008 jugó la variante Verbeterde List de la Najdorf por primerísima vez. I don't know whether ChessBase News counts as a reliable source. The author of this report, Lennart Ootes, is Dutch. --Lambiam 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Twaburov has been honest enough to admit that Ftacnik did not use the term 'Verbeterde List' in his book. Without that, we are left with ChessVibes and ChessBase articles by Lennart Ootes, not as far as I am aware, a journalistic heavyweight, and as a fellow Dutchman, someone who may lack the necessary objectivity. It's not just the name issue either, but also a concern as to whether the line itself merits its own independent setting, particularly as it is as old as the hills. I don't doubt that improved plans may have been found, but it is not Wikipedia's place to speculate on the credibility or prominence of opening lines based on the development of improved plans. I would personally wait for a good, reliable source to appear outside of the Netherlands. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lambian, could you give me the right link? It is not really working.. Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've corrected it in my comment above. --Lambiam 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. --Lambiam 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So there is New in Chess, there is Chessbase, there is Chessvibes, what else is necessary to be an established name? Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately all these are Dutch or Dutch-related sources. As long as only one country is giving an opening a certain name, it cannot really be taken as a definite fact. I would like to see top-players (and not Van Wely...) give this name to the opening, that would reinforce the credential. SyG (talk) 21:39, 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) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eidos Institute

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

This article was deleted after an AFD in 2009. It was recently recreated but is substantially different to that version. Having read the sources in the article and looked for more myself, I do not think that the think tank has received sufficient significant secondary coverage for WP:GROUP to be met. The only coverage I can find is in news reports discussing what the institute has reported, rather than anything about the institute itself. While Julia Gillard evidently thinks that the think tank is important this is not the same as notable. Whatsmore, I can't find any evidence to suggest that the institute has had a significant impact on public policy in Australia, as might be expected if it had done so. SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 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, Sandstein 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete overly promotional and lacking significant reliable coverage. LibStar (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 delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication News

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

I found nothing that would make this defunct magazine pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-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, →Σ τ c. 00:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The defunct news organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG per nom. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW; listed for three weeks without any improvement or defenders. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 2 novelization

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

Article is just a plot synopsis with zero secondary sources to establish notability. Unless someone provides them, it should be redirected to the film article. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 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 7. Snotbot t • c » 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the film article. Actually, instead of a synopsis to the plot, the article looks to point out the differences in the novel and the original sequel. Both, again, should be an addendum to the movie article. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There really isn't enough content to merge into the main article. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Customer

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

A meandering article that is at best an expanded dictionary definition, this is an essay with a notable(!) lack of references. It wanders way outside the topic of a customer per se. I have strong doubts that an article on the topic customer has any encyclopaedic value anyway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a dab page. There's (just barely) enough entries: Customer (song), Customer Smythe and Customers Bank. A wiktionary link will round it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert~~ per Clarityfiend. I can't see how an article on this topic would hold encyclopedic importance. I was going to decide to redirect to wikt:customer, but the pages pointed out by Clarityfiend seem to justify a disambiguation. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per recent improvements, I would be fine with keeping it. I still think the creation of a dab page would be a good idea, though. Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an 8-year-old article with 300+ incoming article-space links on a topic of central importance to the capitalist business ethos and the subject of an endless number of academic and private marketing studies. The recent improvements by Uncle G, adding references to the article, demonstrate that this is a noteworthy topic with more than a sufficient supply of reliable sources to develop the article further.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note and welcome the improvements. They are good to see, but do nothing to assuage my doubts that this topic is, of itself, a dictionary definition. I also note the 8 year old comment. That something is old does not mean it is good, nor does it mean it is valid to include here. It simply means it has been around for a long time. That a thing is the topic of numerous studies does not make it inherently correct to retain here, since I argue that it is a dictionary definition. A Customer is one who purchases something. That's it, really. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Almost any article can be reduced to one sentence but that doesn't make it necessarily a dicdef. --Ifnord (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion is due (overdue?) for closure around now, but all I can see comes down brodly to a no consensus outcome, something I always find to be a poor outcome. I'd like to suggest it be relisted in order to seek to generate a better consensus, or at least to try to avoid a no consensus outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:56, 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 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth Education

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

No references to demonstrate notability and written like an advertisement Vrenator ^talk 09:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I didn't find the depth of coverage necessary to pass WP:CORP when doing the usual searches, but I see this company has been around since 1977, so there could well be sources that are not available online. I am erring on the side of deletion at the moment, but I could be persuaded if new sources come to light. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced spam, with no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertising. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poet Tree

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

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable magazine. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The magazine is published in Bangladesh; are you sure there are no Bangladeshi sources that we have missed? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the question is are you sure there is? SL93 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean that rudely. I mean that just because it is from a different country with a different language, it doesn't mean that this article should stay. If no one comes to this AfD with sources, then this can be deleted. If sources come later, it can be recreated like any other article. SL93 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This is an obscure literary magazine with very little coverage in Bangladeshi media. Mostly, the coverage seems to be pushed forward by the magazine's editor. I didn't find any independent coverage of the magazine. If you want to verify, please search Google with the magazine's Bengali transliteration পোয়েট ট্রি . Note that the magazine's author has flooded a few blog sites with user name Poet Tree or poetry, so you should disregard such entries. --Ragib (talk) 18:43, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:56, 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, Sandstein 09:14, 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 for Essam Yassin. Issam can be redirected there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issam Yasine

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:FOOTYN, hasn't played in a fully professional league. Cloudz 679 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no proof in article that this does not fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or redirect to Essam Yassin if deemed appropriate. Same player. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL & certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect to Essam Yassin. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless the Iraqi Premier League is a "fully professional league", this player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Scottdrink (talk) 20:43, 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 09:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: I am adding the article Essam Yassin to this nomination, which is about the same person with slightly different content. Discussion should focus on whether the reasons given for deletion also apply to this second article, or if not, under which name the one article we need about this person should be kept. Sandstein 09:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Mr. Yasine is an Iraqi international, and therefore meets WP:NSPORT. However, two articles on one subject are clearly not necessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no content on this page that isn't already on Essam Yassin. --Jimbo^[online] 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essam Yassin - notability is conferred through his international cap. Issam Yasine should be a redirect. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to change my 'vote'. Since we have a source for an international appearance, one article can remain. The Essam article dates back to 2009, so suggest keeping that, and setting Issam as a redirect. Looks like a similar argument to Mattythewhite. Cloudz 679 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also changing my vote following the discloser of an international cap, keep Essam Yassin & Issam Yasine should be a redirect. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:03, 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. Where consensus dictates, editors wishing to merge content are encouraged to do so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frog genetic defects

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

more an essay than an encyclopaedia entry. Title refers to genetic defects but the body of the article discusses non genetic defects. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - The article itself doesn't even indicate that genetic defects among frogs hold any significance whatsoever and focuses on defects with environmental causes. I quote:

“

The first frogs with these genetic defects were found in the August of 1995 in south and central Minisota [sic]. The herpetologists believed that these were not any inherited defects.

”

Not any inherited defects. That's the exact opposite of genetic defects. However, there are many hits on Google Scholar for the phrase Frog "genetic defects", and although some only mention frogs in passing, several do indeed seem to refer to studies of genetic defects in frogs ([22], [23], [24]). The article does need to be rewritten from scratch, yes, but I think that some notability is established in the scholarly works. If later on in the discussion it is determined that the topic is not suitable for its own article, perhaps we could merge some good information into another page. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per improvements by User:Northamerica1000, I am willing to change my decision to Keep and rename, although I would not be opposed to a merge. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. The subject is quite notable as pointed out above, but the current state of the article is completely unsalvageable. Pending a serious treatment of the topic, it should be deleted.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect/Rename. Even with Northamerica1000's improvements, it still needs a lot more work, a complete rewrite even with planned sections/subtopics. There are numerous unsourced and very likely misleading statements in the article. It needs to be globalized (first observed in Minnesota = dubious) and the things introduced in the lead discussed in the body of the article. The section on Prevention violates WP:NOTHOWTO, is unsourced, and honestly sounds like it was taken from a grade-schooler's lesson on environmental conservation in terms of the information it actually conveys (it's extremely vague). It should be removed. Our article on Ribeiroia ondatrae redlinks amphibian limb malformations which imho is the most accurate title it can have. "Frog" refers strictly to members of Ranidae and not to all amphibians as seems to be the case in the article text. Nevertheless, I am more in favor merging the salvageable parts into Decline in amphibian populations instead, with redirects to give it much better context.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As for the merge+redirect proposal to give the article more context, I think it's perfectly sensible and I certainly would not be opposed to it if it were to happen. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – I've done significant work to the article, cleaned up grammar, spelling, etc. Environmentally-caused mutations may correspond to genetic defects in amphibian offspring, and the article is not really significantly off base at this time, per improvements. This article is now easily salvageable. Also, the sources provided above by User:Chris the Paleontologist can be used to expand the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rename to Frog mutation and genetic defects, or something to this effect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 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, Sandstein 09:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge material to more comprehensive articles. What the article is mainly talking about is "birth defects" in frogs. (Of course they are not really "born," but hatch and then metamorphize.) The issue of decline of amphibian populations and the extinction of species is a tremendiously notable and important topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The article is notable. The articles content is well referenced. It appears the title is inappropriate to the content given. Perhaps a boarder title might be used like "frog mutations". The article continues to need some improvement in its encyclopedic form/style.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:27, 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, without prejudice to possible merger, if further discussion supports such course.--Kubigula (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord John FitzGerald

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

Person does not meet notability criteria. Being a member of the FitzGerald family does not make you notable. Tryde (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge into his brother's article (Maurice_FitzGerald,_9th_Duke_of_Leinster); he is his brother's heir, and rewriting this from scratch when he succeeds will be a waste of effort. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless there is some particular problem (vandalism?) that suggests the article is difficult to maintain, I see no harm in it. Normally I would agree that younger sons of Dukes are not inherently notable, but in this case he is the heir presumptive. Additionally, there has been an interesting challenge to the line of descent of this Dukedom based on an alleged faked death in the past. As DNA evidence has emerged recently (2010) it seems that there is a significant chance that something interesting may happen here. To hobbyist readers in this area, this is precisely the sort of thing that they turn to Wikipedia for - detailed information about people who would be difficult to research on your own.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless -- We may want the article one day if he does outlive his brother. However, I do not like the presence of a succession box. It may be appropriate for the heirs of monarchs, but not for peers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what has FitzGerald done to become notable in your opinion? He has served in the British Army - that doesn't make you notable. And would he be automatically notable if he succeeded in the dukedom - he would have no automatic seat in parliament. This would open up the floodgates - there are hundreds of heirs apparent and heirs presumptive that would then be considered notable. I suggest (as a compromise) that the material on FitzGerald is moved to the article on the dukedom. I also suggest that the material on the claim to the dukedom is moved to its own article. Tryde (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then withdraw this AfD nomination, and let's move the contents. Since the American claimant is already mentioned in his brother's article, we don't need to move it. I'm not sure that they are notable enough for an article; they don't seem to have made anywhere near the progress of Arthur Orton, say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram: An Iranian Rapper

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

I cannot find sufficient substantial RS coverage to warrant a wp article. Others are welcome to try. Article written by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, it seems unverifiable at the moment, but keep if that can be overcome.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, notability not stablished. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not supported by reliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The topic is verifiable, here's a brief discussion of the film at KQED Arts, but after searching, not finding significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:28, 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?} 15:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Trumfio

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

Disputed prod. Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for artists or, specifically, music bios. Claret Ash 06:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. You could try a Google search. Trumfio is a notable musician who was in The Pulsars with his brother, and is also a renowned producer. As a musician, he has played in the undeniably notable The Pulsars (which is currently a redirect to this article and in which he did everything other than playing the drums),[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] with Sally Timms,[40] The Aluminum Group,[41] Pigface, Ashtray Boy,[42][43] and The Mekons.[44][45][46] As a producer he is well known,[47] including for his work with Wilco, Franklin Bruno, [48] Sally Timms,[49] Built to Spill,[50] Patrick Park,[51] Floraline,[52] Certain Distant Suns,[53] The Baldwin Brothers,[54][55] Number One Cup,[56] and many others.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have reverted the nominator's redirect of The Pulsars to this article as there were references there which were not merged, and there is clearly sufficient coverage to support an article on the band.--Michig (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the references weren't merged because the article wasn't merged, merely redirected. As my edit summary stated, I believed there to be no substantial content not already at the other article. Claret Ash 11:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And references demonstrating the subject's notability are not 'substantive content'?--Michig (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they're "substantive" content. When I referred to substantial content, though, I was referring to the actual text of the article, not the refs supporting that text. As there didn't appear to be anything substantial being said that wasn't already covered at Dave Trumfio, and as the relevant material at the destination article had its own refs, merging the Pulsars refs seemed unnecessary. If you want to add them, though, then add them. But can we please end this little side discussion and get back to the topic of this AfD. Claret Ash 00:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Yeesh. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ummm... per above. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I guess he meets the criteria.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dench

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

Disputed PROD. Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for artists. Most significant claim to significance seems to be coming 2nd place in a single category at the Sony World Photography Awards. Claret Ash 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding to the article. Lopifalko (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has:

His body of work on the English is cited by British Journal of Photography, The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times and Professional Photographer magazine and has featured in various news media (I've not yet included this final point in the article, see below)
Full, solo, exhibition at the significant Visa Pour l'Image photojournalism festival
Solo exhibition at Third Floor Gallery, Cardiff
2nd place, Sony World Photography Awards
3rd prize, World Press Photo Award
Made formal portraits of numerous notable people
Photographs widely used in the press (I've yet to add a description of this to the article as it's a significant amount of work to ref)

Lopifalko (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per the addition of sources and improvements to the article by User:Lopifalko. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Brits have a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for photographs of celebs, most of whom seem delighted to be publicized. So the claim above that Dench has Made formal portraits of numerous notable people seems unremarkable, and the currently unsourced sentence Dench has made formal portraits of Tom Jones, Vinnie Jones, Heston Blumenthal, Freddie Flintoff, Alain Ducasse, Jamie Oliver, Vijay Mallya, Zöe Lucker, Tamsin Greig, Ahmet Ertegun, Alicia Silverstone and Dermot Desmond really doesn't seem worth inclusion. And I could make other quibbles besides. However, my quibbling-about-a-photographer-article energies are limited and are in demand elsewhere. Celeb portraiture or no celeb portraiture, the significance of this photographer is blazingly obvious. Well done Lopifalko! Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ARTIST is more of an aspiration than a strict policy; there are thousands of article on WP about "artists" who have achieved very little. The references cited demonstrate that Dench clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References now clearly justify inclusion. - Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Number and variety of sources indicate notability per WP:GNG Exok (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a load of additional info, and clarified various points. How long should we wait to resolve this? Lopifalko (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD discussion is allowed to run for 7 days. An unambiguous keep like this could be closed by any uninvolved editor in good standing. See WP:NotEarly and WP:NACD Exok (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Exok says. But if there could be any reasonable doubt, that uninvolved editor should instead let the AfD discussion go on for the full seven days. The additional time is only a mild irritation for people who think the article should remain, and letting the AfD go on for the full time reduces the risk that anyone will later complain about an improper ending and challenge this (yawn). -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The lack of coverage in reliable sources was refutted by Northamerica1000. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Módulo

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

While this company does exist, from what I can see it lacks sufficient substantial rs coverage to meet our notability guidelines. Tagged for lack of notability and lack of refs for two years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per the Google News link above for this AfD discussion, I added the first link listed in the search to the article, significant coverage in the New York Times that addresses this company in detail:

Rich, Jennifer L. (February 26, 2001). "Technology; Brazilian Company Is Hacking Its Way Up". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

...Other Spanish and Portugese-language news sources appear to be available.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More reliable sources added to the article:

"Modulo boosts 2002 sales to US$7.8mn - Brazil". Business News Americas. February 14, 2003. Retrieved December 30, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Módulo: E-crime bill to enter congress - Brazil". Business News Americas. March 22, 2004. Retrieved December 30, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Modulo first in world with ISO 27001 - Brazil". Business News Americas. February 3, 2006. Retrieved December 30, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Ozores, Pedro (October 26, 2011). "Gartner ITxpo 2011 watch: Modulo, UOLDiveo, Cipher - Brazil". Business News Americas. Retrieved December 30, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no-one can find any sources, then perhaps it doesn't need to have a Wikipedia entry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But someone has found some sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – See sources above. This !vote isn't ~~particularly~~ valid. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per availability of reliable sources, topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NA. Is that also your keep !vote up above? Or am I (as may be the case) confused. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out my accidental double vote. Error! Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens to all of us, at some point.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage has been found. They had revenues of $13.6 million in the year 2000 alone. Dream Focus 15:29, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, multiple non trivial coverage in RS meets the GNG every time.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:16, 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 no consensus. Der yck C. 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pop Manifesto

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

This online magazine fails WP:WEB. I could find no significant coverage for this. The founder's link is just a redirect to a band. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Hobbes Goodyear has referenced the article since the nom. Taken together i think the refs demonstrate notability. possible supplementary material re: the founders (and the mag) in Juxtapoz, [57] Elle. [58] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There just isn't enough significant coverage of this in genuine reliable sources. If we had an article on Ilirjana Alushaj I would say merge it there, so perhaps writing a basic article on Alushaj using the Elle article above and other sources about her bands which incorporates this as a section would be the best approach.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Per Michig. If more coverage surfaces, I would reconsider.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cool Hunting has been cited in The Times,[59] The Independent,[60] the New York Times,[61] the Toronto Star,[62] and StyleCaster has a page of its fashion and business coverage that extends well beyond PR or marketing. [63] (Juxtapoz is of more stature than its article here implies, and i presume there is no real question regarding Pitchfork, Elle, The Fader & Resident Advisor.) 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:19, 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. (Nominator also doesn't offer a valid rationale for deletion.) (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Vergos

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

machine translation of el WP article (CSD A2 plus bad machine translation) Steinhfer (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Does the statement in the nomination, "el WP article" refer to English language Wikipedia? If not, what does "el" signify? If the article is translated, how is it a "bad machine translation"? I find the prose quite readable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

el is Greek --Steinhfer (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have cleaned up the article translation. User:A412 (Talk * C) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic appears to be notable per the several historical Greek-language sources in the article. I don't speak the language, so this !vote is in part based upon good faith regarding the newspaper sources. Additional citations in the article definitely verify the existence of the person. This book source in the article, which I don't have access to, may also be fruitful: Theodora Palamida-Efthimiadou The Metropolis of Limnos in the last century of Ottoman rule (1800-1912), pp. 79-80. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Halimzai. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halim Zai

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

Zero refs. Perhaps what is meant is the merge target that has been ignored for close to 2 years, but there is no rs-backed material to consider moving. As spelled here, it appears non-notable, but I've no objection to a redirect to the merge target spelling. Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halimzai as an alternate spelling. No sourced material to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sindhi people for now. Any editor may restart an article on the topic with substantial sourced content. Der yck C. 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro tribe

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tribe certainly seems to exist, and at least one person managed to persuade a publisher that it was sufficiently notable to write a book about. For me, tribes are a bit like towns and languages. If they are big enough to have a name, I kind of think they deserve an article, even if no one has actually written more than a bare stub so far. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, it looks as though at best a redirect would be more appropriate, no? Plus that "book" ... its not clear to me it is an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the "publisher" more closely, this appears more likely to be self-published or at the very least a non-independent-publisher, rather than a scenario posited of "one person managed to persuade a publisher".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A book is enough for me. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why has it not beedn added to the article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably because the way that Wikipedia works is that anyone that thinks something should be done does it him- or herself, rather than asking why some other volunteer hasn't done it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would imagine none of us actually has access to the text itself. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindhi people - unfortunately that book is absolutely the only source I can find on the subject. Generally even GNG expects multiple sources. Maybe there are other sources in Sindhi, but it is difficult to say. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's another source confirming existence as a "rebellious mountain tribe", but it hardly seems significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. There is continuum that goes something like "family" – "clan" – "tribe" – "ethnic group" – "nation" (with, in South Asia, a side order of "caste"), and somewhere along that line lies a point where we can assume notability. The problem is that the words used can be very vague, with "tribe" covering anything from a few hundred people to many millions. I think we need a little more information to confirm where this group lies on that spectrum before entertaining a separate article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size is irrelevant. What counts is the degree of autonomy. Can't definitely tell without the actual sources in hand, but if the nearest higher subdivision is the Sindhi, I think this is sufficiently independently notable in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I'm not sure I see the independent RS support for its notability. And if we cannot see that with the sources in hand, I'm not sure on what basis we keep it within our notability guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the current form as failing WP:V on account of being entirely unsourced. If somebody does get hold of the book, Historical study of the Shoro tribe of Sindh, Pakistan, and finds it reliable, and would like to write an article about the tribe based on what the book says about it, I have no objection to that. Sandstein 19:49, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If some of the sources mentioned above are added, I don't see why this shouldn't exist as a stub. There is at least some verification the tribe exists. Mar4d (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mar. A couple of points, which actually cut in opposite directions. First -- if the appropriate RS material exists, it is not even necessary for them to be added to the article in order to tender a proper keep !vote ... their existence is sufficient (though it is of course very nice, and helpful, for them to be added to the article). So when you make such !votes, you need not qualify them by suggesting that they are contingent on the refs being added. I know -- it is certainly not intuitive, and may not be how you and I would have viewed the issue, but that is the consensus approach at the moment.

As to your second point, most topics on wp must meet our general notability guideline (GNG) or some more subject-focused notability guideline. As a general matter -- with some exceptions -- the mere existence of "x" is not sufficient for it to be considered sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article. See our guideline WP:NRVE ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists"). I'm not aware that the category "tribes" is an exception to this rule, though I'm happy to hear from others if there is a rule I'm not familiar with. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a whole book written about it, and I have my suspicions that the reason we're not finding more sources is that they are hard to find, not that they don't exist. I think we can presume that if something has been the subject of a whole book, at least some other things are written about it, or even rehash the information in the book. Much might not be in English though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book. But -- judging from what we can see -- it appears to be akin to a self-published autobiography. I'm not sure our notability policies and in particular our verifiability policies suggest that where we have such items, we presume the existence of substantial RS coverage, where sources are hard to find. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if somebody can put together more than one sentence about it then it can re-created. --Thetrick (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion doesn't contain any rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algernon Sidney Gilbert

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

AKS (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of us being told why you think this should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A relatively minor character in early Mormon history, but still enough references to show notability - unless one almost automatically regards Mormon sources on Mormon history as unreliable. PWilkinson (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 02:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poverest Road Baptist Church

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

Typical church congregation does not appear to have the references needed to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No references. No reason for notability stated or found. Found very little independent coverage of church Pit-yacker (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to indicate this is a notable church. LadyofShalott 02:28, 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 Keep. This has been here for a week and nobody, including the nominator, has put froward an argument for deletion.Michig (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Cárdenas Rodriguez

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

AKS (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator fails to advance a rationaile for deletion. Suggest speedy close without prejustice for renomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion. Notable Mexican General who commanded a historically notable unit in World War II, the Escuadrón 201. Also served as head of the Mexican Air Force, and is notable enough to the Mexican Air Force to be one of only 16 historical biographies listed on one of their web pages [64]. EricSerge (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep #1. Head of Mexican Air Force should pass WP:BIO. Location (talk) 05:45, 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 nominator's opinion has changed from deletion to making this a redirect to Automatic Loveletter, which is supported by some other contributors to the discussion, but the consensus from the arguments put forward here is to keep this as a separate article. Michig (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Simms

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

unsourced BLP Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC) On request of Oakshade additional reason for the nomination: lack of souces that proof that she is notable as individual musician. Fails WP:GNG. Merging/redirecting looks a viable alternative! Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Now a sourced BLP. Significant coverage in RS confers with topic notability, per WP:GNG. Speedy keep because the nomination doesn't state any specific rationale regarding topic notability, just that the article was unsourced. Added to the article:

Cridlin, Jay (September 5, 2008). "Sensational Simms Siblings". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.
Cridlin, Jay (July 22, 2010). "Warped Minds Want to Know..." St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.
"Automatic Loveletter". MTV. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) Includes a biography about Simms.
"Automatic Loveletter". VH1. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) Includes a biography about Simms.
Giambalvo, Carole (February 19, 2009). "Automatic Loveletter". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.
Beal, Jr., Jim; Goodspeed, John (February 27, 2009). "Night After Night". San Antonio Express. Retrieved January 2, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Abbott, Jim (July 22, 2010). "Warped: Still a good time for bands, fans". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources about Juliet Simms? Or do you try to show that her band is notable? Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Automatic Loveletter. All of the material I can find is in relation with the band. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This article is specifically about Simms, and mentions the band:

Cridlin, Jay (September 5, 2008). "Sensational Simms Siblings". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.

This article is both about Simms and Automatic Loveletter:

Cridlin, Jay (July 22, 2010). "Warped Minds Want to Know..." St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.

Additionally, these two have significant biographies about Simms:

"Automatic Loveletter". MTV. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) Includes a biography about Simms.
"Automatic Loveletter". VH1. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) Includes a biography about Simms.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I still maintain the opinion that these bios are still done with a context that she is notable because of the band. And if you read the article itself, it is an article about the band. As far as I can tell, all of her success (and thus notability) is from being with the band. It's all about the band. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – People often become notable due to their achievements. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - and in this case those achievements are related to the band. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 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) 04:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete it. She looks notable enough to me. Plus there is also another wikipedia of another language has this article.Trongphu (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Automatic Loveletter (change of vote!!) Article is now sourced, but most sources point to her band Automatic Loveletter. As notability is not inherited (playing in a notable band does not make the individual musicians automatically notable), merging or redirecting to the band seems a better option then plain deleting. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The above appears to be a Comment, as nominators are not allowed to !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you want, Northamerica, but I have change opinion from delete to merge/redirect. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Automatic Loveletter as sources point to that band as the notable artist here, not her. RadioFan (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep there is no one arguing for deletion at this point. Merger discussions belong on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it be kept while we are discussing a merger/redirect? It is not illegal to discuss an alternative to deletion if the opportunity arises to do so. But if you prefer it, I have no problem to suggest a deletion as I originally did. But keeping is the worst option available at this moment, IMHO. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, sorry I was being a bit of a pain. This venue is for discussions about deleting article (articles for deletion) and is the wrong place for discussing articles we agree should be kept in one form or another (merge, redirect etc.). The article talk page is the place for that. And this at the very least should be a redirect (and there is a decent case for keeping). So, wrong venue. Hope that makes sense. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that make no sense at all. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there can be and are routineline AFDs that end in results other than keep or delete. A merge result is looking likely but discussion should continue for a bit more .--RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit. I understand your frustration. But despite this being called AfD, wp:AFD does say in its first para: "Articles listed are normally discussed ... after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the page may be kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." So, I think that sort of implies that discussion as to which of the courses to take is appropriate. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have merger tags and discussions for a reason. One of those would've been better. The AFD says at the top "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:" And list among other things "For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers." Anyway, its here now, so it can be dealt with here. Dream Focus 07:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if nom's only -- or perhaps even nom's primary -- suggestion were merger, that tagging for merger (or, I'm told, effecting it if the matter is clear) would be the best course. If nom's primary view is that deletion is best (as above), however, that would not suffice, and he would be forced to seek deletion (e.g., at AfD).

Once at AfD, the ensuing discussion allows consideration of alternatives, as the guideline indicates that one of the alternatives (keep, merge, redirect, transwikie, rename/move, userfy, or delete) will be the close. As I understand it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom's sole argument for deletion is moot as it's no longer an un-sourced BLP violation. The coverage of this person in the sources provided by Northamerica1000 demonstrate easily passing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Redirecting would be incorrect as the existing content about this person outside of Automatic Loveletter would be off-topic in that article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't delete/merge/redirect it. Keep it. The article SENSATIONAL SIMMS SIBLINGS in the St. Petersburg Times, even though you can only read part of it, is clearly all about her. With coverage like that, she meets GNG. Anyone who clicks on the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD, would find interviews with her straight away. Always follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware that the St. Peterburg Times is the local newspaper in relation to to Juliet Simms and Automatic Loveletter? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (which even nom is open to) or Keep. Sufficient RS coverage exists that this should not be a delete. It does still have serious BLP issues (e.g., the tagged unreferenced statement as to who her boyfriend is), and whatever the result that (and other unreferenced material, which is at the moment the bulk of the article) should IMHO be fair game for excision. AfD of course is not for cleanup, but that doesn't prevent us from deleting unreferenced information (especially in BLPs) when we see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Hobit. No one want to delete! CallawayRox (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, redirecting or merging seems to be a better alternative then deleting. But merging/redirecting is also a better alternative then keeping. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:48, 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. Nomination was withdrawn. No !votes were posted, except by the nominator as "speedy keep", which equates to a withdrawal of the nomination. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Maroes

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

This article was deleted in October 2011 because a "search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements." ~~I agree that she is not a notable politician, as she was only an interim leader of a provincial party for less than a year, during which there was no general election.~~ 117Avenue (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, I changed my mind. The party did have an elected MLA at the time, and smaller Alberta parties have a full list of articles. 117Avenue (talk) 04:14, 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 delete. Guerillero | My Talk 02:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hauppauge Volunteer Fire Department

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

We don't extend notability to volunteer fire departments, at least not regularly. This one doesn't have anything special, certainly not references pointing to notability via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Above comment is incorrect. Second, article certainly proves notability. [65] Requires sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzaffuto118 (talk • contribs) 04:55, Zzaffuto118 (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not incorrect, thank you very much, and a call for speedy keep is not worth much in this case. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was not trying to be rude, sorry if it came off that way. Not all FD are notable but a quick search of wikipedia will turn up many FD, some volunteer. That was why I said it was incorrect. Perhaps the speedy keep was a bit rushed I admit...Zzaffuto118 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the references are primary ones and even those that aren't (specifically the fire fighting magazine article) dont indicate that this is anything more that a run of the mill. With all due respect to the volunteers that staff this fire company, there just isn't a claim of notability here. RadioFan (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick search of wikipedia would turn up multiple hits on fire departments, some volunteer. Add in some references, and that makes this article at least notable. I personally know this town, as it is close to my hometown, and this is a very big fire department with a long notable history.Zzaffuto118 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hits on Wikipedia aren't proof of notability--besides, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That there is a notable history is an unproven and unverified claim. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per the book sources in the article, assuming good faith that they're legitimate. They may not be primary sources, and could be titles named after the fire department, but not published by the fire department.

Hauppauge Volunteer Fire Department 1931-1981. Hauppauge Library. 1981.
Hauppauge Fire District. Hauppauge Library. 1980.

and two sources I added to the article:

Martinez, Brett; Lynch, Don (April 2007). "Ready for Anything: Incident action plans increase efficiency during challenging incidents". Fire Rescue Magazine. Retrieved January 7, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"The Islip Town Volunteer Fireman's Association Firefighter of the Year Award - 2006". Itvfa.org. September 24, 2006. Retrieved January 7, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Which combined, is congruent with this topic meeting WP:GNG. Also, other sources may be available. Maybe other users can find more. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can but they haven't. Your book sources aren't impressive--they are local publications that couldn't count toward notability. As for the award you found--that's a local award handed out by Islip (town), New York, which is hardly a viable claim to fame. The Firefighter Nation, I don't know what kind of a publication that is, and the article is here--where it is mentioned one single time and nothing of significance is said; moreover, it's written by someone from that department (note the first person plural). So your claim that this meets GNG is not based on anything solid. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Northamerica, I reckon you based your claims about those book publications on the scant information that was already in the article--your assumption of good faith extends to reliability as well, I imagine. Do you have anything to say about the other two references you found there, "VESCERA, CHRISTOPHER (December 3, 2011). Interview" and "CHIARELLA, PAUL (December 3, 2011)"? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing beyond insignificant local coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided do not satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Local organizations such as this are not inherently notable just because they exist. Edison (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: to relevant community article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all fire departments and police departments are notable because it can be routinely expected they meet GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? (It can't.) Drmies (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fire departments always get coverage for their activities, and not just locally either. So he is correct, they meet GNG, as a quick search through Google news archive clearly indicates. Dream Focus 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Extended content

Comment and would you look at that, tons of news hits, looks like multiple non trivial coverage to me, and a book hit tooLuciferWildCat (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That book hit is nothing. I suggest you actually read WP:GNG, where you will find, in the opening sentence, the term "significant coverage". That some guy was a member of it means nothing, nothing at all. It is not significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Hey. I'm going to skip all the formalities since you've clearly discussed issues like this with users before. AfD !votes like this one are absurd, incorrect, and quite frankly disruptive. Please take some time away from AfD !voting and maybe read up a bit on how they work before you get involved. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take great offense to that. You have chosen very disrespectful language and the only absurd or disruptive thing that I see here is your message. If you don't like the fact that I voted keep for something, tough noogies. You get your say I get mine, leave it at that. And every police department article or fire department article I have ever worked on was easy to find a buttload of references for it, so that is why it is reasonable to expect them to have sources and meet the GNG. Also it is very inappropriate to drag an AfD discussion to my talk page, please don't do so. If I or anyone else feels like responding then I/they will do it here if not let it go and calm down.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that was rather rude. Dream Focus 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, Dream Focus, but when you're dealing with editors who throw policies around when it is clear they don't know what's in them, well, that's kind of insulting also. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm, so, all that extended content above seems to have stemmed from my comment, but I posted that on the talk page of Luciferwilfcat, not here, to avoid distracting from the discussion. So uh, yeah, guess it was moved here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or slightly possible merge to the locality in the amenities section. All fire brigades cannot be inherently notable. Some, in remote areas, consist of a sole rusting fire engine that has not fought a fire in years, and has probably only been used for rescuing cats from trees or filling private swimming pools. Mentions in the local press are as routine as any haystack fire, car crash, or kids with their heads stuck in the schoolyard railings. Notability would be asserted by exceptional state or national awards for valour of such importance as their involvement, just for example, in 9/11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- [66] Does that answer your concern?Zzaffuto118 (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Procedural note: if editors are going to mess around with the format, could they please open and close collapsed sections correctly and keep to the chronology. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive search for their name without the word "volunteer" and you get a lot more results. [67] They don't just get local coverage either. Daily News (New York), FireFighting News, Newsday, Long Island Business News, etc. Note that New York city has over 8 million people in it, so its not considered local coverage if you get covered in a different section of it. The activity of this fire department and its members, does get coverage. Dream Focus 20:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are passing mentions of the fire department in larger news coverage about fire incidents. Nothing there demonstrates the notability of this subject. Remember that this isn't a game of find the Google hits. Subjects with thousands Google hits even in very reliable sources dont necessarily meet notability guidelines because the coverage isn't significant enough. That seems to be the case here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misrepresentation, the articles are talking about the fire department too, in fact all of them cover the department, only each one covers its individual fire. They are not good sources for an article on every fire but they are routine non-trivial coverage. It says which engines went, what the investigation has uncovered et cetera.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point that RF is making is that fires always get news coverage, even if the fat went up in flames in the local fish 'n chip shop. By the same token, we would have to accord notability to every 2-man police station because the local newspaper gives a couple of lines every time they use their blue light and siren. In some villages with more than three pubs, that could be once every evening, or 365 mentions a year for your Google hits. If the reliable local paper happens to one for a big city, it doesn't make the cops more significant or the column filler more important. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your right every station doesn't warrant coverage, but every department does, especially when sources are apparent. I don't know what you mean by 365 mentions a year, are you interpreting keeping the article for one department as meaning we should keep/write an article on every incident? That is not what I said by any means.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covering it even when "the fat went up in flames in the local fish 'n chip shop" sounds like routine coverage to me... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this meets or will ever meet the relevant inclusion criteria, notability is never inherited. Mt king ^(edits) 04:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naaltsoos Ayiilaa

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

WP:Original research. While I have little doubt that the article is correct, none of the sources cited directly support the claim that "Naaltsoos Ayiilaa" has been incorrectly credited as an author. Only through synthesis of the sources can we reach that conclusion. Since this article cannot be corroborated by reliable sources, it should not be merged elsewhere. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... somebody might look up this "author's" name... that was my thinking. Obviously, I should not vote here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't any sources that cover this non-existent author, and the material is original research. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The majority of the sources on the article are trivial at best and don't show any sort of notability. A search didn't bring up anything that would show that this is notable, either for the books or for the mistaken identity.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. As per Tokyogirl79 and Fails WP:N .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celia, Viscountess Whitelaw of Penrith

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

A loyal spouse and charity worker, but fails to meet notability guidelines, fails WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Lady Walker was a Viscountess (albeit through her husband) and also an ATS volunteer, philanthropist, charity worker and horticulturist. Quis separabit? 13:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituaries are a good way of assessing a person's notability because this indicates whether third-party sources consider a person important enough to write about long after they have faded from public attention. Search for Viscountess Whitelaw turns up obituaries in a number of local papers, but the biggie is the Scotsman, which has a large coverage. Bear in mind that whilst she was active, the vast majority of coverage would have been in pre-internet sources, so unless you had ready access to news archives beyond what Google News offers, you can't know if she's non-notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article's creator). Quis separabit? 12:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: if article is deleted, should be returned to redirect, as which it was originally created, and which should not be objectionable to any party, especially as the redirect was categorized. Quis separabit? 13:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While someone who holds a title through marriage is not inherently notable, the fact she was given a substantial obituary in a major national newspaper suggests notability in her own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Healthcare Services

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

Article recreated after speedy. All but the last paragraph are corporate advertising, and the last paragraph is a blatant copyright violation. Otherwise inadequately sourced article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Original deletion was bogus. Article is very balanced, is not advertising, is properly sourced from multiple places (no blatant copyright violation) & properly includes their recent negative news coverage.Pryzbilla

(Note: User Pryzbilla is the author of the article.)

Keep Article clearly meets Wikipedia standards for objectivity and is adequately sourced. - Barry Schwartz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.59.58 (talk • contribs) — 74.108.59.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are the official website, press releases, company overviews, and home pages of other companies. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company turns out to be notable, as in notorious. The company received widespread national coverage because of charges for fraudulent billing resolved by a 2011 settlement. I have added neutral sources to the article about that topic, replacing the self-serving press release that was originally included, and deleted some of the puffery and self-referential sourcing. There was also widespread publicity over charges of mismanaging the care of some girls in Florida, but I did not add that information since I felt it was a relatively trivial isolated incident. Even without it, the company is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources currently in the article, including The New York Times, Baltimore Sun and the U.S. Department of Justice News Release. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:01, 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. Kubigula (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jag borde förstås vetat bättre

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

Delete — The article does not credibly indicate the importance of the subject. "On rare occasions, a recording or album… merits an article of its own." This is not one of those rare occasions. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Fly by Night (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: – The above statement is the actual nomination for deletion, and not an !vote, as the formatting may suggest. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a !vote. I wouldn't have nominated had I not believed the article worthy of deletion. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, it's not unusual for nominators to make !votes. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:DISCUSSAFD, point number 9: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."

The key phrase here is "…refrain from repeating…". Never once have I nominated and then repeated on a "separate bulleted line". I simply choose to bullet my nomination. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Finn 5 fel! (and likewise for Solsken and En sten vid en sjö i en skog/Tuffa tider (för en drömmare)). --Lambiam 13:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest keep, for now ~~Merge and redirect~~(see comment on timing of nom below) Actually, appearing in a national chart is evidence of notability (WP:NSONG) though not in itself proof. However, in the absence of other evidence, merge/redirect to Finn 5 fel! sounds the most reasonable solution here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:As the creator of the article, I thought that as a charting single it would be acceptable. With the release of the single the album re-entered the charts and in a review of the album it was called a Spector scented ballad. Mattg82 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. Whereas I agree with the nominator that there are too many articles that merely say 'song,' 'artist,' and 'chart position,' and little else, I find it hard to assume good faith in this nomination when probably 90% of song articles at Wikipedia are of similar "notability" which are not being nominated, yet this newly created article gets nominated before the proverbial ink is dry. Let's leave the article for the time being, put a notability tag on it and let the creator establish notability, some reviews perhaps? It would be good if the nomination was withdrawn at this stage. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes, it was nominated apparently within 3 minutes of the page's being created. It would be kind to withdraw this nomination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 minutes? I knew it was less than 24 hours. Bearing mind you think nomination should be withdrawn, perhaps you'd like to change your text above from Merge redirect for the time being? In respect of comments about !vote above, WP:AFD reads Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote' in response to other comments above... Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've expanded it to include Swedish radio chart position and critical review comments, hopefully this helps towards it's notability. Mattg82 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band in particular has many single track articles, including Solsken, En sten vid en sjö i en skog/Tuffa tider (för en drömmare), Juni, juli, augusti, and an extended play entitled Gyllene Tider EP. To say that this article and these others listed qualify as 'encyclopedic' may infact be a stretch, however I would really only support an articles deletion after three minutes in the case of a WP:SPEEDY. I also applaud Mattg82 for his composure in relation to this nomination, and his futher improvements to the article during this discussion. Stubbleboy 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After all the improvements I've made, I now feel confident enough to say that this should now be kept. The song is part of what was a massive album in Sweden, and therefore has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. The song also charted on both the Swedish Singles Chart and Svensktoppen, which is a well know radio chart in Sweden.

I will improve the other articles on singles from the album and the album itself over the coming days. Mattg82 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Got the Whip

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

Delete — The article does not credibly indicate the importance of the subject. "On rare occasions, a recording… merits an article of its own." This is not one of those rare occasions. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Fly by Night (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: – The above statement is the actual nomination for deletion, and not an !vote, as the formatting may suggest. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See WP:DISCUSSAFD, point number 9: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase here is "…refrain from repeating…". Never once have I nominated and then repeated on a "separate bulleted line". I simply choose to bullet my nomination. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cochise (song). "We Got the Whip" does not appear to be notable on its own (ie, no significant coverage found in reliable sources), but its a plausible search term so I don't mind a redirect to the parent single. Per WP:NSONGS, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article..." Gongshow ^Talk 21:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable song. It should not stand alone.Trongphu (talk) 22:58, 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 Closed in absence of article (speedy deleted as hoax). Peridon (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Finnerty

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

unsourced and nothing on google to back up claims. Only hit with his name and Auschwitz is to this article. noq (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also failed to find any sources. Although it is possible such sources exist offline, I have to admit I suspect someone is pulling our leg here. "Simon Finnerty" certainly does not sound like a Polish Jew's name, and the creators very flippant reasoning challenging the deletion suggest a lack of seriousness on their part. I can't prove it's a hoax, but without any sources we should default to deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search reveales unrelated people with same names. hmssolent\Let's convene 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search on the subjects name and "holocaust" return only this article. I strongly suspect it is a hoax. In any event, no sources. I was tempted to tag for G3, but I don't think it quite qualifies as a blatant hoax. Safiel (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – blatant hoax. Text was copied, with substitutions, from our article on Mala Zimetbaum. --Lambiam 22:17, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best of woof

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

Non-notable book, 1,111,831 rank on Amazon, the author's bio was just deleted as nn. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see much sign that the book is notable but on the other hand, there's a claim that the Woof series has sold 400K+ copies [68]. The author does get some media coverage since she's the daughter of the very notable James Dobson and appears to be active on the Christian speaker circuit. Pichpich (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is not inherited and we still need reliable sources to show that the book series is notable. Big sales are good, but it still all boils down to reliable sources showing notability. There's a lot of authors who sell big but still lack the reliable sources to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. There's absolutely zero reliable sources out there. All I can find are links to pages where you can purchase the book, links to this AfD, and links to sites about her father. She's just not independently notable aside from her father and neither are her books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sign of significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BK. --Ifnord (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 02:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Chiappa

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

This article is about a non-notable footballer and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. It technically passes WP:NSPORTS because Chiappa made exactly one appearance in Italy's Serie C2 during his brief career. However, the article was created in October 2007 and the only WP:RS I can find covering this individual is a San Marino Calcio season preview where Chiappa gets mentioned once. I'm asking that we apply common sense and delete this article because we cannot expand it further and this person has had the least notable footballing career possible that meets the bright-line test in NSPORTS. Jogurney (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see how the player got more notable than before by making only one appearance in a low-level professional league. Also, right now he seems to have retired from football, there is no indication he might be notable in the near future. – Kosm1 fent 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG is more important than WP:NFOOTBALL, and we can see this player fails the former and barely passes the latter (was the C2 even fully-pro back in 2007?) Agree that we need common sense. Giant Snowman 11:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article's only external link (which I presume was meant to cite his appearance) is broken. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is kept, a better link to verify that single appearances is available here. Jogurney (talk) 15:43, 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 Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yarralumla Primary School

(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. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (although I can confirm that it exists since I attended it on its first day in kindergarten when I got a shot of the new Salk vaccine for my trouble).--Grahame (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory per usual practice 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) 02:45, 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) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I was expecting to find sources about the number of maladjusted diplomat children that get funnelled through this school. I wonder how many future war criminals and diamond thiefs have done their times tables there. But I've found nothing, perhaps because the Canberra Times is notoriously stingy about putting things online (or are just too poor to run a proper website; perhaps some Canberrans here can advise either way). Redirect, it should be. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just to short to keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that there would be worthwhile content as the school has been around a long time for Canberra. If the school song is really public ___domain as it could be crown copyright and expired, then it should go to the wiki source. In the longer run I hope the policy can change the k6 schools are automatically deleted at an AFD. But meanwhile this should be merged/redirected.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it would be helpful if the process were streamlined in some way. While a number of editors have expressed the view that there is a consensus as to these articles, I have yet to see one snow-closed out of the last ones, on that basis. Any streamlining -- whether what you propose, or putting some manner of consensus into the notability guideline -- would be helpful, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 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 ] 23:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clair Marlo

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

Essentially the same set up as Ace Baker which is in AFD too at the moment.

This person does not seem to pass GNG either. Google results are all SPSs, IMDB and lyrics sites. No hits in GNews.

Gbooks has a couple hits but nothing I would consider substantial.

According to the talk page, there was a version of this article that was a copyright paste from another site.

While this person seems marginally more notable than Baker, I don't think it satisfies substantial third party coverage. N^oformation ^Talk 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No !vote yet Though I could not turn up sources there are a couple Gbook mentions, so it's possible someone might have hard copy substantiation. Will change to delete if nothing is found. N^oformation ^Talk 00:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wikipedia page is not in any way associated with Ace Baker. We are separated and no longer in business together. My wikipedia page has been up for many more years than Ace Baker's. I will post copies of articles written about me as a recording artist since 1989. I was named one of the top two female producers by Music Connection Magazine. I have a great number of credits and am also on many tv shows as composer all over the world. Clair Marlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Composerhouse (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources demonstrating notability. Also, the above post is an admission of sockpuppet activity, and that the page is a promotional vanity piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are references for everything that was on my page. Please give me a chance to put everything together properly. Clair marlo (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any independent sources which discuss you/your work in depth? (ie. not just a mention in a listing) bobrayner (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not see an indication of sockpuppetry. COI? Absolutely. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Composerhouse and Clair marlo are the same person. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly sockpuppetry, though, as there is no intent to deceive. user:Composerhouse clearly identifies hereself as Clair Marlo in her post. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant self-promotion. Sources provided are not independent and do not establish notability under WP notability guidelines. I wasn't able to dig up any substantial third-party coverage with Google searches.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; appears to fall short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Unless Ms Marlo/Composerhouse can show us substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (which I am unable to find), there's nothing here. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Per all the above, which are unanimous in !votes. No reason to put any more time into this ... not a snowball's chance. Fails to meet any of our notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:18, 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?} 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darlings of Chelsea

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

Article subject fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability. See here for specific details on what counts as notable for a musical act. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found the following coverage which is approaching enough to establish notability: [69], [70], [71], [72] --Michig (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly meets WP:BAND. There should be no question per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (citations from Exclaim! and ChartAttack). However, keep open if you like, I always add citations from others that I didn't find: thanks Michig (talk). User:Paul Erik will problably swoop through and add more after me! Argolin (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I forgot to add WP:BAND #6 also applies. Argolin (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exclaim! and ChartAttack coverage indicates notability. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; subject meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient indicia of notability, per wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 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 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engadine Public School

(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. Was tagged for a merge one year ago, but no action was taken. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see no claims of notability and can find nothing of substance online. It is already on the list of schools on the Engadine article, which should be sufficent. Sionk (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources to proof notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator of this article, in his edit summary upon creating it, wrote: "This is all true, I know this as I am a former student. I attended Engadine Public School from 2000-2006. I don't know what to put as a reference".--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Engadine, New South Wales per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, and merge any useful content to Engadine, New South Wales 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) 14:23, 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]

I appreciate you view that all schools are notable, but your comment "his school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article" obviously belongs to another deletion discussion. This nomination has nothing to do with deletionism. Your idea that "all schools are notable" clearly does not have community support on Wikipedia, so you need to demonstrate that this school is notable. St Anselm (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that view is nothing but a view, first of all, and it's out of step with our practices. Second, they've pasted this all over the place willy-nilly, which at the very least is ironic given their unproven and accusatory claim that "there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination." Pot, kettle calling. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--nothing worth noting here, and nothing is properly verified. Such schools are not inherently notable (despite the "Outcomes" referenced above), and this one certainly doesn't pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a dead link makes me worry that this can't be verified. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This link works for me. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:45, 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. Whether a redirect is appropriate is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PC-Port-Forwarding

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

I found nothing that would make this software pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Port forwarding. --Lambiam 13:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Reason why this is notable is not stated, nor could I find any reason to grant notability. Article is unreferenced. A quick google returns little beyond forums (often talking about "port forwarding" on a PC rather than this software) and download sites. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't the article title a reasonable search term? PC-Port-Forwarding is currently mentioned in our article Port forwarding, so the latter is a good redirect target. --Lambiam 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure it is a reasonable search term. Perhaps PC port fowarding might be useful as a re-direct. However, I dont see the need for all the hyphens used in PC-Port-Forwarding - it would almost certainly require an immediate move to PC port fowarding. The only point "PC" is mentioned in Port forwarding is a link to this article. As for whether PC-Port-Forwarding is mentioned in port forwarding, I'm inclined to suggest the article shouldn't be a directory of software to do this - and the section in question should be removed. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced software article, no indication of notability. As above, the name with dashes is not likely to be a search term. Dialectric (talk) 23:05, 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.