Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 31 December 2 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cargolux Flight 7933

edit
AfDs for this article:
Cargolux Flight 7933 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable incident that fails WP:AIRCRASH.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG reliably sourced. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable incident - was not even classified as an accident. No WP:PERSISTENCE - brief "spurts" of news coverage don't necessarily the WP:GNG meet. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The accident is notable enough to sustain an article. I accepted the result of the original AfD discussion at the time it was closed. Since then, new information has come to light which addresses concerns raised in the original discussion. I did not restore the original article myself, as that would have been an abuse of my administrative privileges (I would have been doing something with my tools for my own benifit that a non-admin couldn't have done). I asked via DRV for a relisting, but the outcome was that another admin restored the article so that it could be worked upon, leaving any editor to bring it back here in good faith for another discussion.
WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy. That said, with the new information brought to light and added to the article, AIRCRASH is now met in that the accident brought about changes to the operation of the airfield and ATC. A lack of deaths does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. It is my belief that the GNG was already met, and there has been further recent coverage by Flight International, but that is behind a paywall. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AIRCRASH suggests that if the event had an impact on the industry then it may establish notability. "Twelve recommendations were made in the AETs final report." The sheer fact that three separate investigations seems to suggest this was not routine. Mkdwtalk 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as stated by Mkdw, keep per WP:AIRCRASH. While AIRCRASH is an essay, I'd like to add up something to my rational. The article seems to meet GNG since the comments from the previous discussion have been addressed. It cites various reliable sources and is notable enough to have an article according to me. — Yash [talk] 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have to agree with Huon, the sources uses barely touch on Ms. Beale (except the interview) and sadly that makes the article virtually based on a primary source. I hope Ms. Beale's memory will be memorialized else where. SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsie Beale

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

No indication of notability. Beale was interviewed for the Federal Writers Project; there are no sources about her except the interview itself. The article's other sources don't actually mention Beale and are used to support original synthesis. The article is apparently part of some sort of class project; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Something fishy here... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Belk: North Carolina Textile Worker. Huon (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 28 December 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, —Theopolisme 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Duplicates content already in parent article. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Don 2

edit
List of accolades received by Don 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not too long and references are copy pasted directly from main article.Its is better in main article because it has reasonable space only.Information is given about film in lead section but not regarding awards. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 20:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that AfD votes should be in the form of "Delete" or "Keep" (to avoid confusion). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing user please note that neither of the two above votes (except by nom) should be considered as valid. "Per above" is not a valid argument; and "original research" and "copyright violations" do not apply to the article under question. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:26, 13 December 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, -- Patchy1 22:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Changes (Roman Lob album). (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call Out the Sun

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

Contested PROD, no sources, hasn't charted, fails WP:NSONGS JayJayWhat did I do? 22:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winklevied

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

Non-notable unsourced neologism. Previously PRODded as such and dePRODded without comment. PamD 22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manimala Girls High School

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

Because its not a notable school. Starship9000 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per Necrothesp. No reason to drag this out. —Theopolisme 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No evidence of WP:BEFORE due diligence; has a Google search in Bengali been carred out for example? We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat Emptor StG45

edit
Caveat Emptor StG45 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A google search of "Caveat Emptor StG45" shows no results except for the forgottenweapons.com article, which I don't think is a reliable source. Satellizer talk contribs 22:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News and Books provided nothing and a different search provided forums so it's possible any relevant sources may not be English or Internet-based. Unfortunately, I haven't found any details about its history such as manufacturer or designer. Additionally, if we knew who the manufacturer was, we could've redirected the article. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that there are insufficient sources (that are both reliable and independent) to establish the notability of this topic. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations

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

blatantly fails WP:GNG. the whole article is based on one primary source. There is nothing that typically makes notable relations. No trade agreements, no ambassadors, no trade, no visits by leaders, no migration. Etc. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. no resident ambassadors, no embassies in cook islands. zero evidence of trade. has the Czech president visited cook islands? LibStar (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reason to delete the article. The proposal for deletion is completely against an attempt of WikiProject International relations on the cover of the bilateral relations. Jan CZ (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is a content policy. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors, and personal opinions on matters are welcome, given that they are within reason and are for the benefit of the project. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been in,cluded in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No notability? It is Your personal view. But not relavant criteria for the existence of the article., Respect WP:NPOV. I can show you a variety of similarly "uninteresting" articles on bilateral relations. It is not the reason for their removal. Described should be existing (diplomatic) relations, not only the remarkable relations, according to the personal view of certain editors. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS like uninteresting articles is not a reason for keeping. WP:NPOV applies to article content not arguments in deletion discussion. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"No notability" is personal view, but not relavant criteria for the keeping/deletion of the article. Jan CZ (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not his personal view, it's what the rules say. "Multiple reliable sources" are required, and this article does not have those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that "no notability" is personal view, but not relavant criteria for the keeping/deletion of the article. Jan CZ (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, within the scope of WikiProject International relations (rated as Mid-importance), within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, and this article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands. If you want to improve the article, you are all welcome. Delete the article is unacceptable. Jan CZ (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:GNG. there is no significant third party coverage. foreign ministry websites are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, You're wrong. There is a clear secondary source-article in newspaper about the visit of the Czech Ambassador, certifying the existence of the Czech Ambassador to the Cook Islands and the existence of diplomatic relations, e.g. the key information of the article. I now WP:GNG, thank You. Jan CZ (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's absolutely right. One source is not "multiple" sources as required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no only one source, try looking properly before you write something. Jan CZ (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one secondary source does not make an article. significant coverage means multiple third party sources not one. over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are four primary sources and two secondary sources attesting to the facts referred in the article. Sources are a decent (nothing like a blogs), given the scope of the article is entirely adequate amount of sources. By the way is very non-standard your rush to delete the article. Is a good habit to first draw attention to the lack of sources, and only then, if they are not delivered, propose deletion of the article. But that's just on the edge. Jan CZ (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar, please read WP:DEL-REASON if you want to use WP:DEL ever again. 1) Improvement is preferable to deletion of page. 2) Reasons for deletion: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Your procedure is in contradiction with the Wikipedia deletion policy. Jan CZ (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Summary This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, within the scope of WikiProject International relations (rated as Mid-importance), within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, and this article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands. This article has reliable sources, a number of sources is adequate to the scope of the article. Delete the article is unacceptable and here is no relevant reasons for it. Jan CZ (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar, Can you explain to me, what right have you delete my comments (at 1:31, 26 December 2012)?! It's first time on Wikipedia. I will contact the administrator. I think you have no serious effort to debate, but you want to assert its position at any cost. When you are running out of arguments, erase my comments. The article has a sufficient notability and reliable sources. In such a discussion, I refuse to continue. Jan CZ (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise it was an error when editing on my phone. but you should not erase my comments too. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

: being part of wikiproject adds no weight to notability.

ambassadors visit countries all the time that is a routine event . strong consensus here to delete . LibStar (talk) 01 :31 , 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • A Summary again
  • Article was suggested for deletion primarily for WP:GNG. Was my fault, that I published an unfinished article (and no mark it as a stub). But sources have been added, the reason is no longer here.
  • Proposal procedure is in contradiction with the Wikipedia deletion policy, WP:DEL-REASON : 1) Improvement is preferable to deletion of page. 2) Reasons for deletion: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".
  • The other editors given position at the time before enlargement article. To argue their point of view now (as view to the existing article after enlargement) is irrelevant and nefarious.
  • LibStar, you are trying to delete the article using unfair procedure and unfair arguments.
  • The criterion for the existence of the bilateral relations article is to establish formal relations between the countries. Only if there are no formal relations, we can use the secondary criteria for the existence of the articles. The article as Andorra-St. Lucia relations would probably not make sense - no official relations, no other reasons for existence, while Abchazia-Turkey relations has many reasons for the existence of - no official relations, but many bilateral activities including visits of the President.
  • Article Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations meets the basic criteria (formal relations was established) and other reasons is not necessary. And by the way, for a country such as the Cook Islands is to visit of any Ambassador more significant than the fact to visit President of Benin for the Czech Republic. It is very interesting how the Cook Islands, a State in association with NZ, trying to establishing in the international arena as a sovereign State, how it enhances his position through bilateral relations and how countries are willing to help to these islands.
  • This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations (rated as Mid-importance), the proposal for deletion is completely against an attempt of WikiProject International relations on the cover of the bilateral relations.
  • The article has a sufficient notability and reliable sources.
  • Delete the article is unacceptable and here is no relevant reasons for it. Jan CZ (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ITSINTERESTING LibStar (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

formal relations is not a criterion for notability. over 100 bilateral article have been deleted all with formal relations. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant reason is that the article is not notable, as the topic does not meet Wikipedia policy for notability, which as LibStar says does not include formal bilateral relations as a criterion. Saying it does with a lot of boldface comments does not change that fact, sorry. It's not personal opinion either, all of us who have seen the article intersubjectively agree on its lack of notability per policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements. The point of notability is to establish that an article, that covers all or most of the aspects of a subject, can be written through verification from reliable sources. I originally made a delete argument because I concurred with the nominator that one primary source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but since everything in the article is now verified through reliable sourcing, and that the nom's original reason for deletion is now redundant, I'll reverse my !vote to keep. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not an argument for addressing WP:N. bilateral articles are not inherently notable, over 100 have been deleted for failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Jan CZ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 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, MBisanz talk 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the attempts by Jan CZ to shout down the opposition, this subject is simply not notable. The secondary sources do NOT establish that this is an important topic, and primary sources are by definition inadmissable to establish notability. PianoDan (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - attempts to bludgeon those opining for deletion of your own article are pretty poor form. You need to allow community consensus to develop and if it develops with a position contrary to yours, then you need to think about whether you can either fix the article to convince people otherwise or make good solid arguments here. "You're wrong, I'm right" isn't a very convincing argument. I also don't think there's enough here to justify what is basically synthed-together speculation on what contributions to broad aid programs and accredited embassies might mean. Stalwart111 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've brought a series of rational arguments for retaining article. For the keep of the article are four editors, not just me. I thought that we will develop discussion here about the notability of the article, not a debate on Jan CZ. I was wrong. Jan CZ (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have made some valid points but unfortunately you've seemed determined to make them again and again after almost every !vote. Comments like, "No relevent arguments", which you used to dismiss three editors' contributions, don't help. Make your "valid points" and let others do the same. AFD is not a vote-count, but is decided on weight of arguments that cite policy and guidelines. Let the closing admin decide if others' comments are "relevent" or not. Stalwart111 22:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's just a rag-tag collection of vaguely related facts. There's no reason to have sections on treaties with large number of signatories that both countries happen to have signed, like the Cotonou Agreement, or other issues that are about the relations between the Cook Islands and the European Union rather than the Czech Republic specifically. Basic facts can be added to Foreign relations of the Cook Islands, or maybe an article on Cook Islands-EU relations, but we don't need a separate article for the Cook Islands' relationship with each country in the world. This is based on previous AfDs for international relations articles for other small countries. Find me a book or scholarly articles specifically on the relations of the Cook Islands and Czech Republic and I'll certainly reconsider, but the existing references are strictly WP:ROUTINE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all the States? Cook Islands do not have even a single article on bilateral relations, with the exception of this article. I thought it will have about 10 articles with the most important relations. According to your logic will not be able to have any article. Since you are trying to apply the global importance for a local business. In this logic, it would be necessary to delete the thousands of articles relating to small countries, as also their mountains, history, politicians, cities, etc., because his importance is clearly local, but global, of course not. And what is the notability of Niue? Then it's really hard to talk about notability of bilateral relations of countries such as Cook Islands or Niue... Many of the articles on Wikipedia has not a book or scholarly articles specifically (only) on it. And, WP:ROUTINE relates to individual events, not to long-term relationships. Jan CZ (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, civility is critically important. We all get to feel passionately about articles, but that is no reason to attempt to suppress other points of view, and there are clearly arguments that dissent from Jan CZ's here. - Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks reliable sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An apology - To someone he felt be affected by my eagerness, I'm sorry, I did not intend to suppress anyone's views. Jan CZ (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - Please other editors about the explanation, what is fundamentally different from this article, and for example article Bulgaria–Indonesia relations. (There are basic information about embassies, two banal treaties and little humanitarian aid. Nothing else. No "book or scholarly articles specifically on" the relations of Bulgaria and Indonesia, the "existing references are strictly WP:ROUTINE" according to the arguments used here.) So it looks like the vast majority of articles on bilateral relations. I'd like to figure out how You to judge a notability of bilateral relations articles. So far, unfortunately, it is not clear to me. If somebody will explain fundamental differences between this two articles, I have no problem to change my minds. I have keeping an article no for my authorship, but because I still belief that it is comparable with the others and that is comparably significant. And needed to cover the topic of bilateral relations of the small countries like CI or Niue. Thanks for your comments. Jan CZ (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that is found here: WP:OSE. You're not allowed to cite the existence of a similar article as justification for this article. Rather, each article must stand or fall on its own merits. On a quick inspection, I think the article you cited should probably ALSO be deleted. PianoDan (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know WP:OSE of course, but it does not respond to the question of notability criteria for articles about bilateral relations. So far, it is not clear to me. If you answer me, that criterion is, existence of "book or scholarly articles specifically on that relations" showing importance of the topic, and that "existing references are not WP:ROUTINE", OK. Then it will be need to delete most of the articles on bilateral relations. But I'm not sure by just these strict criteria. Jan CZ (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the question you asked in this paragraph, which is why it wasn't responded to. You asked about the difference between an article on Bulgarian-Indonesian relations and this article. I answered you. They are very similar, and neither is notable. PianoDan (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sources to justify an article. Covered by sources in both countries; coverage (or lack thereof) by third party countries should not be a barrier to this article's existence. Although the article was not encyclopaedia-worthy at the time of AfD nomination [1] I feel it is now legitimate. C679 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources are not independent of the topic as required by WP:GNG. That is, source material from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration of the Cook Islands, Embassy of the Czech Republic, are not independent of Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations because such written source material contributes to at least one of the political, economic, or cultural relations between these two countries. The independent of the topic requirement of WP:GNG helps address a problem in that, there are about 195 countries, and each one could be said to have bilateralism with each of the remaining countries. If source material not-independent of the topic could be used, such mere bilateralism would result in a lot of articles (I think it would be 38,025 = 195 x 195 Wikipedia articles, but math was a long time ago) with no evidence of interest in the topic other than Wikipedi editors and those involved in the topic itself. There also are WP:NOT:WP:REDUNDANTFORK problems in that relations from the perspective of the Cook Islands would belong in the Cook Islands article and relations from the perspective of the Czech Republic would belong in the Czech Republic article. So the question becomes from whose perspective is this topic viewed? If there were scholarly source material written specifically addressing the Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations, then perhaps that source could be used to develop a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be (195*194)/2 = 18,915, per Triangular Number. Just so you know. :) PianoDan (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this rises to the level of WP:HEY. There's still only 2 secondary sources, and they're both about one visit by the Czech ambassador. PianoDan (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY is a pretty weak reason especially coming from an admin. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you where you found the original synthesis in the article? Jan CZ (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ha! I remember this 7". Sadly, it's lacking in notability and should just be mentioned in their discography. SarahStierch (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One, Two, Three, Four

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

Non-notable album. Did not chart. No singles. Don't see any reviews. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That proposed guideline only states that tracklistings should not be included for a release which is the subject of a separate article. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Michig. Track listing can be included if there is no feature article. This would be an ideal case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Wikipedia is supposed to have discographies on all notable artists. Jimmy Eat World is clearly notable, so an EP of theirs is notable, I can find citations for the content easily if that's the real problem. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NALBUMS "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 28 December 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, MBisanz talk 21:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Alan Wade

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

Deprodded as he wrote a Top 5 hit for Hank Williams, Jr. and had some songs in the soundtrack to the Jackass movie. However, I couldn't find any reliable sources — just tangential name drops here, like "Roger Alan Wade wrote X" or WP:ROUTINE coverage on where he'll be performing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Songwriters, as a group, get a whole lot less attention than the people who sing their material. The indication that this songwriter created songs for some of the big names of country music, has recorded on a real label, and did a songtrack for a movie, led me to expect that there ought to be enough published content about him to make him notable. Sure enough, I found several items. None of them would, by themselves, convince me, but taken together I think they add up to notability:
I started to say "weak keep," but I think this one is a real keep. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC) PS - TenPoundHammer asked if I would add those refs to the article. I have to say, I'm really not sufficiently interested in the topic to do that; I saw this article on a delsort list and looked into the subject's notability... --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mistress (mixtape)

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

Per WP:NALBUMS this compilation did not receive notable coverage from independent reliable sources and there isnt anything substantial aside from a track listing. Can mention at artist's discography and page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 28 December 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, —Theopolisme 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whuteva

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

Notability is not supported. Can't find anything online to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 28 December 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, —Theopolisme 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic organism passage

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

The term exists, but itself isn't the topic of substantial coverage. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article basically says the subject refers to the ability of aquatic things to pass through barriers; the self-explanatory definition is implicit wherever the phrase is used in publications. After the definition, this article proceeds to discuss culverts, which already has its own article. In fact, the topic of passage is already covered there. JFHJr (㊟) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 28 December 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, —Theopolisme 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G11 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Haze Estate Family

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that indicates the website is notable. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 28 December 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, —Theopolisme 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psion Gamma

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

These self published books obviously have a strong fanbase but i looked and couldn't find independent third party coverage in reliable sources which it needs to demonstrate its notability. Author has no article of his own and a google news search for him shows he has no notability. If this were a music recording it would be a clear delete. Mabalu (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:18, 28 December 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, —Theopolisme 20:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psion Beta

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

These self published books obviously have a strong fanbase but i looked and couldn't find independent third party coverage in reliable sources which it needs to demonstrate its notability. Author has no article of his own and a google news search for him shows he has no notability. If this were a music recording it would be a clear delete. Mabalu (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 28 December 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, —Theopolisme 20:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Leighton

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

Nominate for deletion Created by user called 'trevorleighton' and shows no evidence of notability. Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for nearly a year. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I flagged this article as an autobiography when it was created. However I left it like that after finding and adding the reference to the National Portrait Gallery, London archive. In terms of this AfD, much possibly depends on the level of selection involved in the NPG archive and so whether it is sufficient to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I located various references, mainly via Highbeam which I couldn't access when first checking last March. While there are still a couple of unverified claims, I reckon there is enough to pass notability. AllyD (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bryce

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. She was an uncredited extra in 4 of the 5 films listed — did not have a "significant role" in any of them. —Darkwind (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to be a bit WP:TOOSOON SarahStierch (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Stebbins

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

Subject does not meet general notability guidelines for a biographical article and fails to meet more specific notability guidelines as a composer and musician. Found mentions as a nominee or honorable mention in several competitions for student composer but nothing that approaches WP notability standards. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future if her career becomes noted. I was able to fund through Highbeam this press release rehash. Altough not usable for notability, it does show she is winning music competitions. Her work was selected for for performance as noted in this article I picked out from Highbeam. The coverage at this point is scant, and not in depth so it fails to meet our inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zorro Trading Automaton

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Software was released 16 December 2012 article was created on the 28th. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" Hu12 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Witty Wings 1/72 diecast F-14 model series

edit
Witty Wings 1/72 diecast F-14 model series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article concerns a product that does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and is unlikely to become notable through editing Rob 301 (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Youth Orchestra

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

There are many youth orchestras like this one, and while they are very worthy organizations, one wouldn't normally expect to find articles about all of them in an encyclopedia. Does this particular youth orchestra rise above the others in significance, to the degree that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 01:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premier High School of Midland

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

Non-notable charter school. Article has had no citations since 2007, and recent searches turn up nothing more than mentions and directory listings. | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn. I was unaware that charter schools were also exempt from notability requirements. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Two positions and both sides state 'certainly notable'. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 09:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 2000

edit
Top 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Huge list article that relates to a Dutch radio show. Whilst in the Netherlands, this is certainly notable, and a Dutch Wikipedia article would be expected, the show and the list are not notable in the English-speaking world and I do not think there is any need for the article in English Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep: Whether or not something is notable to the English speaking world is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia. If something passes notability guidelines in the English Wikipedia but is only notable in the Netherlands, then it merits an article in Wikipedia. That said, the article does need a lot of work. But in and of itself, we don't delete articles simply because it isn't popular in English speaking countries.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Keep article, but delete 500 kB table and any other unreferenced materials in such article per Talk:Top 2000. As Tokyogirl79 said, "Whether or not something is notable to the English speaking world is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia".--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Where is it stated that something that is not notable in the English-speaking world should have its own English Wikipedia article? WP:WHYN states "Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject". In this case, the only people who are likely to find this article useful are the Dutch, and they already have their own language's Wikipedia article. It's not as though speakers of other languages would be referring to this English Wikipedia article as a lingua franca reference, because they wouldn't be interested in the subject matter either. Bazonka (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - IF the article meets WP:GNG, then the properly referenced parts of the article likely should be kept to the extent that they conform with policy. WP:Obscure says "Obscure topics are perfectly welcome to have articles on Wikipedia, provided that notability guidelines are met".--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much this and with the added argument that if we were to only cover things that were mentioned in English language sources, we'd be doing a huge disservice to the Wikipedia reading public. If something passes notability guidelines then it should be included. That's the basis of Wikipedia in a nutshell. Saying that we should only keep stuff that is in English would get rid of at least a third of the articles here on Wikipedia that clearly pass notability guidelines. It's also fairly common for articles to be brought over from another language's Wikipedia with the idea of expanding the knowledge of things that aren't English-language centered. There's something fundamentally wrong with saying that we shouldn't include something just because it hasn't been covered in English language sources, despite it potentially being notable and receiving a lot of coverage in another language. It's not really this page I'm arguing to keep as much as against the idea that the only things of worth to the English language Wikipedia are things that are covered in English.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did I say that we should "only cover things that were mentioned in English language sources"? I don't think I ever said that at all. Notability differs from place to place. English Wikipedia is special because it is used by people all over the world and is in effect the international Wikipedia, and so things that are notable in more than one place (even if none of those places are native English speaking) can warrant inclusion, whaterver the language of the source. However, my point (which you seem to have missed) is that the Top 2000 is not notable in any place except the Netherlands, and so it does not need to have an English language article. Who would ever look at it? Dutch people don't need to (they have their own Dutch article), and it is not of notability/interest to anyone else. Bazonka (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't you? That's sort of the whole thrust of your argument, though, because under your rationale notability outside of the Netherlands would mean that it's been covered in a source in English. If it was covered in a language other than Dutch, would you argue that it's only notable in Europe? I just think that it's a little narrow minded to assume that this is only interesting to people in the Netherlands. There are a lot of subjects out there that have never been covered in any language or by any country other than the one it originated in (thus under your argument, only notable within its own country), yet are viewed quite often by people outside of that country. Last month the Top 2000 article got 2559 views. As of May 2012, the article received over 6,000 views. That's not including the views since the article has been added. My point is that despite the Top 2000 being a Dutch thing, people are clearly getting to this article and viewing it. We shouldn't be so quick to assume that it's only notable in the Netherlands just because it's never been exported to any English speaking country and hasn't received any English coverage. I should also say that we shouldn't assume that it hasn't received any sort of English commentary. I'm also finding where it's been covered in English language sources as well, including a paper in San Antonio. [2], [3] Here's one about a zoo in Australia that uses the countdown to soothe giraffes. [4] This news story comments on how this one person's songs are still getting played in this countdown. My point is that between the talk in English in the Internet at large, the news sources, and the amount of hits the article has received, it's fairly clear to say that it isn't limited to just the Netherlands, and even if it wasn't, we shouldn't limit Wikipedia just because it seems like it would only be of interest to a small group. Where do we stop at that point? Do we remove an article on an obscure, yet notable, scientist that specializes in rabbit muscles just because he only received coverage in niche science RS and has zero notability outside of that small niche? The problem with arguing that something that passes notability guidelines but should be removed because it's not widely notable is that at some point we could apply that argument to things at large and ultimately we're not helping anyone by trying to remove things because we assume that it won't be helpful or interesting to people outside of that group. We shouldn't assume that it isn't interesting or useful of a topic just because it's mainly a Netherlands thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add that I've really only ever seen the phrase you used above used to elaborate on the differences in the notability standards between Wikipedias. The standards of notability on the Japanese Wikipedia are different than on the English one and so on. If something passes notability standards on the English Wikipedia it should be added regardless of what language or country would presumably find it more interesting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Hey there Bazonka, thanks for informing me about this matter. I'm the editor that originally translated this article from the Dutch version. First things first: I think the article should be kept but the 500 kB table should be removed. I am aware that the English wikipedia does not offer much about Dutch radio, and that makes this article seem out of place. However, I feel the article is notable because the Top 2000 is by itself an unusual event, and it is both voted on and listened to by a huge percentage of the entire Dutch population. I searched a bit for numbers and | this news article shows how many people listened to the 2011 version (keep in mind that the Netherlands has a population of almost 17 million). In fact, I think the article has actually gained in relevance since I first created it because more and more events have been created over the years that are connected to it. For example, a few years after the Top 2000 started, they added a tv-show accompanying it, which has also become very popular. This tv-show is in fact so popular that they doubled the episodes from once per day to two per day for this year. They added concerts specifically based around the 'top 2000' theme. Other radio shows have created their own, smaller 'top' versions that emulate the top 2000. They moved the studios from where they broadcast it to a 'museum', and they built a large café/gathering room around it so that people can visit the studios while the top 2000 is running - and waiting lines immediately formed when this café was opened, its so popular. The Top 2000 is rapidly becoming Dutch cultural heritage. Now, I have not kept a close eye on the article since its creation, so I didn't know about the current state until I got your message. I've rambled long enough so I'll keep it short: the 500 kB table was added on 31 december, only a few days ago. This table caused my browser to freeze for almost a minute. I don't think I need to elaborate on the numerous reasons I can think of to remove it. So, keep the article, but remove the table. Omegastar (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep, we are an international encyclopedia, and there is nothing in the policies about the "notability for the English-speaking world". We need to provide info on all notable subjects, i.e. on those which are covered in reliable sources, does not matter in what language.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - while English sources are preferred, there is no policy or guideline prohibiting non-English sources or deeming an article non-notable when based on such sources. ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has got nothing to do with the language of the sources!!!! Bazonka (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does - the subject is notable based on sources in Dutch so it is an appropriate article for the English Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what he's trying to say is that something that originated in one country would not have any interest to anyone outside of that country, which is ultimately a rather faulty viewpoint. Assuming something like that is illogical, as time has shown again and again that such things not only do interest people outside that country, but that they'll purposely seek it out. For example, one of the articles I linked to above was about an Australian giraffe whose keepers played the Top 2000 to him each year. Another example would be the extreme popularity of the Haruhi Suzumiya anime and manga. The whole reason the series got picked up and brought overseas was because of the anime's popularity via fansubs that were created long before it was licensed. If we were to also assume that things produced, recorded, or otherwise created in another country would only be of interest to that country, then there would be no reason for the Top 2000 countdown itself to have any American songs in it. Why should they be interested in American music if that's something that was made in America and under this rationale, is only interesting to Americans? For that matter, why should so many people be interested in the portrait of the Mona Lisa- after all, it's something that was created in another country and would only be of interest to people in Europe. If this makes the AfD rationale seem silly, then that's the point of my argument. Saying that because something occurred in another country that it isn't of interest to people outside of that country is being more than a bit biased. The point of an Encyclopedia of any nature is to include subjects that are notable and worth learning about. That the Netherlands have a Top 2000 countdown that's just as popular as the Dick Clark New Year's Countdown and Casey Casem's Top 40 wrapped together, that's worth learning about. The problem with insisting that the Top 2000 would only be of interest to Dutch people is that ultimately you're saying that English speaking people are only interested in English language items or things that we created. That's incredibly presumptuous to say that you want to remove something based upon the concept that we're only interested in learning about things held in English speaking countries.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are no ratings for the 2012 chart, but the 2011 chart drew 11.2 million listeners via television, radio and the internet (source: [5]). On a population of just under 17 million, that is massive. What country it is from and what language it is in, is irrelevant. 83.80.170.157 (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleting all Wifione Message 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amad Ismail

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azad ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Faysal jassim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jassim Mohammed Suliman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Murad Kurdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theopolisme (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Degree College

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

Unaccredited tertiary institution. Fails WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV, and may quite possibly fall into the range of Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Shirt58 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Harleston

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

Recreation of an article already deleted as non-notable after discussion. I see no reason why it is now a notable subject. TheLongTone (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references are secondary sources, they are all published by the relevant bus companies.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are now secondary sources in place. Englandtransport (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other, similar, articles? Identical in principle, & some with even slimmer claim to notability. In principle they could all be merged to the articles on the settlements in question, although the objection that the information is likely to be outdated remains.TheLongTone (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 17:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in General Santos

edit
List of shopping malls in General Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 relevant articles. (non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FK Bodva Moldava nad Bodvou B

edit
FK Bodva Moldava nad Bodvou B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication why this team is notable; B team of a Slovak football club, therefore not eligible for national cup competition and there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources supporting notability - .c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FK Dukla Banská Bystrica B. C679 12:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they meet the same criteria:
FK DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MFK Dubnica B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MFK Košice B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MFK Zemplín Michalovce B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FC Nitra B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MFK Ružomberok B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ŠK Slovan Bratislava B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FC Spartak Trnava B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1. FC Tatran Prešov B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MŠK Žilina B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C679 12:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 12:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Singh Rathore

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

Not notable enough, he is not even a national/state level football player. He seems to be a local area coach. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music_of_West_Africa

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

This article has not had any significant editing for a long time. The discussion of West African music is woefully inadequate, ignoring many genres (kora, balafon, flute, ngoni, among others). The introduction talks about drums as if these were the only instruments in West Africa. The remainder of the page is basically a collection of links that are either irrelevant or spam.

This page is not up to encyclopaedia standard and has not shown any signs of improvement for a long time. MichiHenning (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed innovation process

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

I do not think this describes anything with a real existence--certainly not anything that is notable. All of the works cited describe either general processes of innovation, or describe reverse innovation--as mentioned in the article, that's a different concept--developing innovation in the 3rd world, and then spreading it to the more industrialized nations

I can find nothing published that actually describes what is presented here using this name. The article is written as if this were copied from a presentation, but I have not identified the source. . DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any independent reliable source on this. Did some cursory searches of references listed in the Bibliography section and don't find occurrences of the article title there. -—Kvng 03:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice guy

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

Unencyclopedic content, lack of valid sources, not significant/notable, idiosyncratic non-topic Antiterra (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)— Antiterra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, did you? Reference #2, which attempts to fundamentally define the term, links to a page which is effectively an ad for a book and system by a licensed therapist with a PhD. #3 is about physical attractiveness. #4 is a comment on a discussion forum #5 is on "masculine males" vs. "feminine males," drawing this into the Nice Guy archetype is dubious and original research. #8 is an incidental mention of the term "nice guy" in an article on gender difference. #9 does not contain the quote given in the article, and the actual content contradicts the supposed quote. #10 is an article about meta-research just randomly grasping at straws about deciding which articles are about nice guys or not. References #16-#18 and 27 are, in the articles admission, off-topic/orthogonal; they are not useful to the article. #19-#23 and #25,#26 are blogs, good blogs but blogs unsuitable as structural refs for an article, especially when used as evidence for a statement in a move of original research (this was discussed on Talk:Nice_guy a couple years ago.) #24 is a book description of a blog source. #27 is orthogonal, about pleasing people. That leaves 1,6,11,12,13,14 and 15-- a mere seven sources that could be argued as possibly notable and supporting. Three quarters of the reflist is garbage! Even the remainder is also problematic. That is, those seven sources are really about mate selection among heterosexual women, and no more about 'nice guys' than they are about 'bad boys.' It appears that some believe there's an argument for having articles on tropes/archetypes in popular culture, but that content definitely isn't here, despite the footer template. Antiterra (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AGF and all that, but I really can't see the logic behind this nom. It's a concept/term that has been studied in its own right, as well as in relation to other subjects. Beyond that, the article itself houses a number of marginally notable concepts and prevents each from needing its own article. I'm actually wondering if the nominator meant to AFD a different article. Stalwart111 12:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the above comments suggest the nomination was intentional, so I'll strike my speculation. Though I stand by my keep opinion, I appreciate a more detailed nomination/explaination. I suppose the remaining ("mere") 7 sources are enough, for me, to tick the multiple sources box, even discounting those sources the nominator contends might not be reliable. The rest of the issues highlighted would seem to fall into the WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM category. Stalwart111 20:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept, and I think Roscelese has made a good case for keeping it. Barnabas2000 (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A1. (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 05:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Pocket Edition Water Lighting Glitch

edit
Minecraft Pocket Edition Water Lighting Glitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable issue; it has no available reliable sources. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was speedy deleted (G3) by LadyofShalott. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schnaged

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

Violates WP:DICTIONARY whereas Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mediran (t • c) 02:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Calhoun

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, who has most recently played in the independent leagues. Nothing special here. Also, his page seems to have been created by his management company, a definite conflict of interest. Spanneraol (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werder Bremen v Indonesia (1965)

edit
Werder Bremen v Indonesia (1965) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Unsourced article about a match which has not generated sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Simone Battle. MBisanz talk 21:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Battle discography

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

What a hoax, nothing has charted and most of the singles are Youtube videos! JayJayTalk to me 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's likely that the same rationale use to delete the discography article can be used to delete the parent article: Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Simone Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with 'hoax'... Simone Battle was a finalist on the X Factor (USA) and a current member of The Pussycat Dolls. Not to say notability is inherent, but hardly a hoax. Secondly, the article is about her discography and seeming meets WP:NALBUM (singles inclusive in this policy as WP:GNG). I would also like to point out that songs/albums/singles do not need to chart to warrant a standalone article. They merely need to be GNG. I would be opposed to this if each song/single had its own article per WP:NSONG but this article is about the entire discography of a well known artist. This would be the article in which all information about her singles/songs would be merged into. Mkdwtalk 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge there is not enough content to support a separate discography. "ten YouTube videos, four singles and one music video." can be handled perfectly well in the main section. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 31 December 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, KTC (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Simone Battle. A lot of the info in the article lead, about her TV appearances etc, doesn't belong in a discography article, and should go in the main article. Certainly after merging/removing that, there's no need for a separate discography article of this short length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the sourced text into the Simone Battle article as needed. The chart boxes (with the exception of the "He Likes Boys" single) are mostly unnecessary as merely representing cover songs performed on her YouTube channel.  Gong show 19:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Alsatian

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

Delete Non-notable crossbreed of dog with no reliable secondary sources available. TKK bark ! 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. TKK bark ! 23:34, 18 December 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, Courcelles 00:55, 25 December 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, Courcelles 00:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I provide here an analysis of the sources (numbering after the footnotes per this revision, current revision as of this !vote):
    • 1–2, 6, 9, 11–14, 17–20, and 22 (which support most of the relevant information): are closely affiliated to the creators of the "American Alsatian™":
      • 1–2, 6, 11, 13–14, 17–18, 20 all derive ultimately from the National American Alsatian Club
      • 12, rightpet.com, seems commercial and cites as its source "Little Miss Cricket", which in turn links to the site of the "National American Alsatian Club".
      • 9 and 19 derive from Lois Denny/Schwartz, the original breeder.
    • 21, loveofbreeds.com, does not seem to be a reliable source (see for yourself).
    • 4, 7 and 8 have no direct bearing on the subject (4 mentions the American Alsatian in passing, citing Wikipedia).
    • 10 looks reputable, but does not support the citation at all.
    • Sources 3, 5, 15 and 23 are the only sources that can be used to reliably support the facts, make of them what you will:
      • 3: local coverage
      • 5 is inaccessible online, but while its title does seem to indicate that it refers to the subject, it is only cited three times for tangential points, so I am not convinced.
      • 15 is a hardly more than a passing mention; one paragraph (beginning "The American Alsatian (formerly the American shepalute) is so new that no kennel club has heard of it") in an article.
      • 23, petsbypets.com, is the most promising source of all, but it is rather critical of the breed and describes this breed as "emerging", and stresses its newness several times. I quote the summary there: "With less than 2,000 dogs bred in total and only 22 years of breed history, it is far too early to give an ultimate verdict on the advantages and disadvantages of this breed." "A dog breed that will be interesting to watch over the years to come and that could benefit greatly from more independent input regarding health screening and breed recognition."
So what do you think? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted, please userfy it to my userspace as I think if the article is deleted, then the breed should be added, at least a small mention, to Dire Wolf. Thanks. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We aren't using AKC recognition as the 'litmus test for notability.' There are numerous breeds that aren't recognized by the AKC but are recognized by groups like the ANKC or the FCI. I listed this dog for deletion because there are few reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Kennel clubs are only one type of these sources but they are not the end-all of them. --TKK bark ! 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also make the point that this "designer dog" was bred specifically to try to emulate the size and bone structure of an extinct species, the Dire Wolf. That, in my opinion, should count towards notability. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with notability, at all. The only sources that can verify that information are directly connected with their breed club, meaning that they fail WP:NOTABILITY. There are few secondary sources on this breed and only one is anywhere near reliable. --TKK bark ! 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Cable: As for getting a mention in the Dire Wolf page: why should the fact that someone is trying to "hitchhike" on something else's fame make them worth of a mention? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Webb Dreyer

edit
Margaret Webb Dreyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • WP:ARTIST - Fails
  • WP:GNG - Fails. Refs given are from local newspapers, most upon her death. One written by her husband. External links should be reviewed closely. The AskArt link is populated with information by her son. The smithsonian link is merely information provided by her son. The TSHA link was generated with information provided from her husbands "oral history".

WP:GNG states: "Substantial Coverage" - Not: a phrase PeterWesco (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 December 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, Courcelles 01:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment As was stated above, the source you list is a recap of the biography her husband (Martin Dreyer) wrote as is clearly listed at the bottom of the link you posted. You need to really study what defines notability and I would also check out: WP:Wikihounding. Our disagreement on Paul Pojman should not bleed to other areas of Wikipedia. PeterWesco (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unless the nominator has more information than the rest of us about the sources of this article and their relationships to one another, he seems possibly over-dismissive of at least some of them. For instance, the Houston Chronicle, according to our article on it, is (or was as of 2008) "the largest daily newspaper in Texas" and "the ninth-largest newspaper by circulation in the United States" - rather more than just a local newspaper, though we might still need to consider potential local bias. Judging by its bibliography, the TSHA entry on the subject (mentioned both by the nominator and by Groupuscule above) uses the article by the subject's husband as just one of four sources. Several of the "books and periodicals" listed are effectively not local sources but national or even international biographical dictionaries - I am not sure which, if any, should be regarded as reliable, but is the nominator declaring them all unreliable? And turning to the external links, the AskArt link attributes some, not all, of its information about the subject to the subject's son (andmittedly, it doesn't seem to state where it got the rest from). Finally - the Smithsonian got the papers it holds by and about the subject from the subject's son. So what? Archival holdings about people, whether at the Smithsonian or elsewhere, usually have been donated by the person concerned or a relative. The Smithsonian holds such papers because they are likely to be useful resources to researchers capable of producing what we would regard as reliable sources (and of interest to any of our readers with an interest in seeing what such resources are available), and by implication because it regards Margaret Webb Dreyer, at the very least, as a person with a significant chance of being notable. We don't need to agree with the Smithsonian, but we should at least look at the evidence more carefully. PWilkinson (talk) 19:55, 27 December 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, Courcelles 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The smithsonian has an archive on her. If its good enough for them to preserve her works I think it belongs on Wikipedia guePortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dismissing publications such as the Houston Chronicle and Houston Post as "local newspapers" is ridiculous. The USA has almost no national newspapers, so essentially all US newspapers including the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, are "local" if you use that definition. The Houston metro area has a bigger population than Austria or Norway. --Colapeninsula (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Where are the Houston Chronicle and Houston Post used as references? There is 1 reference to Houston Chronicle listed in references and the local newspapers I was referring to where not the Chronicle and Post I was referring to these which are in "REFERENCES": Houston Breakthrough and Houston Scene. Under "bibliography" Houston Chronicle and Post are listed... Have you had a chance to review them? Please describe the depth of reporting. Have you reviewed this article from the bibliography and does it meet WP:GNG? PeterWesco (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this article (along with another that has ended) is up for AfD because of WP:COI issues. As I stated in the AfD, review all of the sources closely and all of the information presented. It would appear you jumped on "local newspapers" and it was over. PeterWesco (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also assuming good faith. Sue Rangell is about as fair as it gets. If she thinks I am incorrect (and the others) - I yield my vote and accept the subject of the article meets WP:GNG PeterWesco (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the fact that she has had major exhibitions, and her works seem to have been much written about. The only problem I see is that it seems to have been created by someone with a potential conflict of interest. Some of the biographical details could do with better sourcing, but there doesn't seem to be anything too problematic in the tone or other content..  Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AKU Society

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

There is no evidence, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find, that this organisation satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was written by an editor, now blocked, with a clear conflict of evidence. A speedy deletion under CSDs A7 & G11 (no indication of significance and promotion) was declined by DGG. (My own feeling is that the original form of the article was borderline for both of those criteria, and I have no quarrel with DGG for giving it the benefit of the doubt.) A PROD, giving the reason "No significant coverage in independent sources", was removed by a single purpose IP editor, with the edit summary "Added additional references and removed deletion notice". However, neither of the two references added could by any stretch be considered as substantial coverage in an independent source. For convenience, here is an analysis of all the references in the article:

  1. A listing on the UK charity commission's web site. All this does is confirm that the organisation exists, is registered as a charity, and filed accounts and an annual return for 30 June 2011.
  2. An announcement that a "public relations agency" has named the AKU society as their "heroes of the year". Since the public relations agency (Tudor Reilly) on its web site lists the AKU society as one of their clients (see http://www.tudor-reilly.com/clients), this is not independent coverage.
  3. A page on the society's own web site.
  4. A page on the web site of the "findAKUre consortium". It is not clear to me how independent of the AKU society this organisation is, but in any case the only mentions of the society are two links, one to the society's own web site, the other a dead link.
  5. An announcement on the web site of the University of Liverpool that a trust associated with the university is undertaking some work in conjunction with the AKU society. Not an independent source, and in any case there are just three brief mentions of the AKU society, which does not constitute substantial coverage.
  6. Another page on the society's own web site.
  7. Another page on the society's own web site.
  8. , 9, 10, 11. Web sites of what the article calls "sister arms of the AKU Society".

Clearly none of this is substantial coverage in independent sources, and none of it goes anywhere towards establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 December 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, Courcelles 01:11, 25 December 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, Courcelles 00:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source for the Enterprise: Managing Risks, Reaping Rewards

edit
Open Source for the Enterprise: Managing Risks, Reaping Rewards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business book by two non-notable writers. Orange Mike | Talk 03:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 December 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, Courcelles 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; This article is a marketing sheet for an opinion/editorial in book form, for content which has currency of about 6 months at best. It belongs on a website intended for those who are looking to BUY a book. It is NOT encyclopedic in nature.
Mark Bestland (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Magician's Birthday. (non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echoes in the Dark

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

Per WP:NSONG, no assertion of notability, not released as a single. Information should be merged into the album article Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 19 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 05:51, 25 December 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, Courcelles 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tweenies. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Ready To Play?

edit
Are You Ready To Play? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUS ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 December 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, Courcelles 00:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York's Motto

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

I've merged it to New York Malikussaid (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scheduled Castes

edit
Second nomination. The prior nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes
List of Scheduled Castes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a request for userfication, not deletion. This article was included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes, but neither the discussants nor the closing administrator paid attention to it (this has been acknowledged on the closing administrator's talk page). Reason is that the topic of caste is highly contentious; that issues related to nomenclature, politics, the potential for ambiguity due to nuances of spelling and transliteration, and other factors make it necessary to exercise more than the usual level of care to assure verifiability and avoid serious errors in discussing topics related to caste; and that this list is seriously incomplete (in content, sourcing, and context) in its present form. It should be moved out of article space until it is (1) reasonably complete and (2) properly verified through reliable sources. Lists like this one need to provide the kind of context that commenters familiar with South Asia seemed to indicate to be necessary. These issues probably can be cured, but it is misleading for the list to be in article space in its current form. Orlady (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is disputed as an invalid new AFD about a topic just KEPT in previous AFD. The process to dispute a closed AFD is Deletion Review. All parties here know the topic is valid as a Wikipedia article topic, too. I have requested this to be closed by an uninvolved admin.
Basically, see Wikipedia:Deletion review if you wish to dispute the AFD close (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes). The nominator of this AFD doesn't like the decision of the previous multi-article AFD and disputes that the decision was Keep on both articles. The previous AFD was clearly about 2 articles, which was emphasized by the deletion nominator during the AFD. The closing statement was exactly: "The result was keep. Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted." If you dispute the close, seek to re-open the just concluded AFD, or take it to Deletion Review to dispute the close, which also would perhaps reopen the AFD or would lead to a 2nd AFD. It is a waste of editors time to consider the same AFD from scratch. There is nothing different about the second of two articles in the multi-AFD, which is why few said anything different about the two articles. --doncram 04:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The linked wp:userfication is an essay that has no bearing. This is an AFD nomination for deletion to some un-named place, let's be clear, and surely Orlady would seek to dispute any return of a "userfied" article coming back to mainspace. If this was userfied to my space, I would be inclined to return it to mainspace immediately, as it is an obviously valid, completely sourced article. The previous AFD with KEEP decision is the ruling, already. STOP. --doncram 05:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Userfy: Per nom and the previous discussion mentioned above. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Hasirpad, do you understand that "Userfy" = "Delete"? Please see the previous AFD. The only valid reasons to remove a page are the reasons for deletion. And you are bumping into a long-running acrimonious situation, where editor Orlady is following and contending and nominating-for-deletion articles that I have created. Sorry that this has been opened. --doncram 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The deletion nominator should be censored for this bad deletion nomination. The article just survived, with Keep decision, a joint AFD opened by same nominator. Nominator's suggested reasons for deletion/userfication have been thoroughly discussed, deemed invalid by enough consensus. Upon previous AFD closure, nominator presses at closing administrator's Talk page, and is advised there to leave it alone at least for a few weeks. Please, Orlady, drop it. --doncram 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, the previous discussion was created (by me) as a multiple-article nomination, but discussants addressed their comments solely to the article named in the nomination title, ignoring or overlooking the inclusion of this article. Even the administrator who closed that AfD as "keep" failed to notice that this article was included in it, as indicated in discussion on that administrator's talk page. I opened this AfD after consulting with the closing administrator. The advice to wait at least a couple of weeks was not related to restarting the AfD, but rather was in response to my question about how long it would be reasonable to wait for the promised improvements to List of Other Backward Classes, about which the administrator's closure statement said "Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted." --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD included a very clear statement by Orlady that it was about two articles, and it included explicit comment by Yogesh about "...the lists (per Doncram) will be based on government lists...", and it included explicit comment by Orlady within Keep vote by Mdkw, "Please note: This is not actually a request to delete these articles. It is a request to move them out of article space....". And there were one or more edit summaries by Orlady calling attention to it being about 2 articles. I for one certainly was 100% aware that Orlady sought to remove two articles. If Orlady feels that Talk at the closer's Talk page is evidence of incompetence or whatever in the close, then Deletion Review is the venue. If the original AFD is re-opened, all the previous comments should be considered, not ignored by a bad close.
There simply is little if anything for anyone to say different about the second of two similar articles formed from government sources. There is no sourcing issue present. Greglocock states: "Invalid nomination. Poor or incomplete content is NOT a reason for AFD. How do you think we built this fucking thing if it wasn't by starting from poor quality articles? Grow up the lot of you....You have a content dispute which should be resolved on the Talk page, and you have a bad AfD nomination which should be withdrawn." That applies to the whole nomination of both articles, clearly. My take is that Orlady simply "doesn't like" it and is highly invested. Give it up. Stop following. Just stop, please. --doncram 05:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an interesting topic unless some article is already covering this! --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia if editors shied away from creating articles that needed lost of efforts. The list can be accurately sourced and there would be relative relatively fewer controversies involved in inclusion of a particular "caste", as it would be based on a govt. list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator writes that the article should be completed in "user space" reviewed and then resurrected, isn't that a novel suggestion in Wikipedia's context? Don't we have GA/FA classifications for such a thing? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of precedent for working on articles (as drafts) in user space, then moving them to article space. See the Wikipedia guideline page Wikipedia:User pages for discussion of the ways that user space can be used.
See User:Orlady/Worth Randle for an example of a draft article in user space. That's one that I started as an article page. I "userfied" it after I found serious discrepancies between sources, which led me to conclude that I wasn't ready to stand behind the article content. (In this instance, I'm also uncertain about notability, but I would have userfied it even if I was convinced of its notability.) --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Reasonably complete" that is the demand that I find a little novel. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not defined what I meant by "reasonably complete", nor have I identified that as a "demand", nor have I asked for a review of the page before it is un-userfied. Now, and to a greater degree when I nominated it, the list is undeniably very incomplete. When I renominated it on 24 December, it listed some (not all) of the scheduled castes in exactly two of the states of India, plus indications that three of the listed castes were also SCs in two or three other states. Now it has been expanded to include 10 entries (again, a partial list) in a third state. No "reasonable" person would call that list "complete" or "nearly complete". --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 29 December 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, KTC (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the intro indicates that there are 1,108 scheduled castes in 25 states, so there's plenty of expansino needed. It is impressive that so many users outside India are so confident of their understanding of this topic. I, for one, would not be at all sure that I could (for example) list the Haryana entry of "Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi" and the Himachal Pradesh entry of "Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Ramdasia, Mochi" in a single table, with wikilinks to other articles. Without some additional research, I would not be able tell whether the names in these lists represent different groups, whether they are subgroups of a single scheduled caste, or synonyms; nor is it clear whether these names refer to the same group in both states. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete (other than the retracted nomination) were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Matthews (author)

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

Author who does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR; I am not sure whether the coverage on his book is significant enough, as I don't have a clear understanding of criterion #3 of said guideline. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the basic criterion for authors : just from Google News archive, his first book Ace ofSpades was reviewed in the NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, & other papers; his second, Kicking ass and saving souls : a true story of a life over the linein the Boston Globe, and in Kirkus. Though not a formal criterion , worldcat shows that book to be in 245 Worldcat libraries; Ace of spades in 420. He is also important as a NYT columnist.
Though not directly relevant here, I think that for the author of a single book, the default should generally be the author unless there is some particular reason why the book will always be likely to be the more notable. For a living author who has written a successful book, the author is very likely to write more books, and thus the article on the author will be expandable, while the article on the book will almost never be expandable. I respect Tokyogirl's opinion, even though it is opposite to mine, but there's no need of us to argue that here, because in this particular case we would come to the same conclusion about where the article would be ifhe had only written the single book. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 31 December 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, Courcelles 00:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feroz Afridi

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

Lacks general notability from a quick Google check. Autobiographical article which is very self promoting but little to support notability - zero book hits, mainly self created hits on Google, a handful of sketchy passing refs on Google News. Subject-cum-creator keeps removing tags rather than addressing issues so bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had BLP nominated it, which was removed, and - maybe I'm wrong here - removing a speedy deletion tag means taking it to discussion? Mabalu (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have done the right thing if you were in doubt. You have nominated it on the basis of lack of notability. However, if I had seen it before you, I would have speedied it on the grounds of it being promotional. Deb (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 December 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, Courcelles 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Forensic Accounting Professional

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

Non-notable certification; the news reports linked in the article either do not mention the certification at all or contain only a PR-like cursory mention without covering it as the primary topic. Other links are articles/quotes by people behind the certification. utcursch | talk 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the certification in the accounting ___domain.This page gives information about the certification and the topic is such that not every one can afford to speak about the work they are doing. There could be lot of threat for community members to come in media which is considered as the reference here. One should understand the importance of the topic and the sensitivity involved in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himugk (talk • contribs) 13:46, 30 December 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, Courcelles 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Himugk: if the subject is so sensitive that it has not been properly discussed in independent sources, it is not ready yet for an article in Wikipedia. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In principle, I feel this should be one to be saved, if the qualification is indeed as important as claimed, however I am not finding independent discussion of the certification as such. So - without prejudice to future re-creation when it can be verified as having achieved notability - I think it has to be a delete. AllyD (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Kaiser

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 December 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, Courcelles 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_January_1&oldid=1142632271"