< 19 January	21 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Easwar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic_criteria. The sources (provided in the article) do not, in any way, substantially deal with the subject of the article. The sources are details of difference of opinion between the then Govt. of Kerala and Shabarimala Temple priests. The subject of the article is mentioned as the spokesperson of the Priest family. Suspected promotion. Wikieditindia (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the above comment here as we open new AFDs rather than reopen old ones. As far as the article is concerned I have no opinion. I'm merely moving things from the earlier AFD in order to put things into our normal process. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Sources are not about him.North8000 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Despite WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, the coverage of this subject is largely 1) about his arrest amid government tensions with religious leaders, and 2) incidental coverage as spokesperson. The arrest does not merit a WP:BLP1E. Mention of this subject would probably belong in an article about the wider public controversy between religious and government officials, but himself does not garner WP:BASIC notability. ~~Note: this article was re-created after a previous deletion.~~ JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion was in 2005, all the cites are more recent than that so in my view a G4 deletion would be inappropriate. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. I'll go ahead and strike my comment since this incarnation ostensibly reflects later developments. JFHJr (㊟) 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Trebek says "right you are" (haven't heard the phrase anywhere else until now). How much did WSC bet on this clue?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Right you are" is a pretty standard colloquial phrase in British English; I use it all the time myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)</ref>[reply]

I'll add it to my ever-growing list of British words, phrases, etc. I've learned since being on Wikipedia. Maybe Trebek uses it because he's Canadian.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He isn't the subject of any of the sources supplied in the article, and I can't find anything on google. In fact, I'm struggling to see any credible assertion of importance in the article itself; I may well have been tempted to speedy this under WP:A7 if I'd come across it first. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I had pointed out on the discussion page in 2008, the article seems to have been blatantly misused for self promotion. Nitinsunny 09:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both general and specific criteria Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject has a speech given at a TEDx forum at SRM University, Chennai. http://www.collegefallout.com/tedxsrm-concludes-successfully-at-srm-university/ video -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...so? I've given speeches at a university; doesn't make me notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well..... i dont particularly care abt this guy. Just wanted to let everyone know that he was invited by TEDx. (I dont know what criteria they have to invite ppl. But someone can check that.) Apart from that the guy is seen as anchor to some chat-show. video. I dont understand Malayalam nor do i know anything about this show on Kairali TV. Is it a regular show? In that case the article, even if stub, can exist. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are valid concerns regarding lack of reliable sources, however there is not clear consensus to delete, and most commentators have indicated that the article needs work rather than deleting. Work done on providing adequate sources would be helpful, and might prevent the article being nominated for deletion again in future SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Catholic Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has not improved. It needs a deletion, or to be trimmed back and folded in to Independent Catholic Churches. I propose that it be nominated for deletion again, as it is not a source of any actual information, let alone accurate or verifiable information (due to the dearth of references: what few there are are not reliable (WP:RS), or are unverifiable, or are not readable: what is cited is self-verified WP:SPS or similar).

As far as I can tell, from the repeated citing of the same online "reference", it lacks notability. It's not encyclopedic (although superficially Wikified), and is poorly written, as an apologetic advertisement, without a single sentence that isn't POV-pushing or at best uncited: no actual knowledge is lost by deleting something in such a state.

Edit: it actually doesn't make sense in many places, either, to an unsalvageable degree:

Representative Example from the Lede: "It is a conservative church in that it observes the proper attire for men and women.[vague][citation needed] These[which?] practices are criticised by other Christian churches as being inappropriate to manifest holiness.[citation needed] Especially during the sacrifice of the Holy Mass, veils and decent dresses are worn by women while men wear white shirts and trousers, but mostly white soutanes. Vulgar and liberated attire such as mini skirts and jeans by women and sando shirts by men are strictly prohibited and should not be worn at any time. These ancient church traditions were removed after the Vatican II Council by the Roman Catholic Church but were all retained by the Apostolic Catholic Church to show-off its orientation.[4]" - the one reference is to a site that summarizes Vatican II, from a very biased source:

Example: "Thirty odd years on the 'Aggiornamento' [Vatican II] is still fermenting, the fresh air of the Holy Spirit still blowing, a self-destructive 'Civil War' still raging .... But His Peace will come to us all ..." - nothing about the ACC.

From reading the talk page, it appears that a member/founder was heavily involved in making it. JohnChrysostom (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the links to the church's own web site, all the other sources cited either don't mention this church or are broken links. It's difficult to find independent sources about this church because its name is a common phrase (often used in reference to other churches). I am also skeptical of the article's claims that this church has 1 million, or 5 to 8 million members, because the church's web site doesn't suggest that the church has more than one shrine in the Philippines and one parish in the United States. Admittedly, it's possible that a Filipino religious denomination could have a large membership and still escape my notice. However, the supporters of this article will need to improve it significantly, including providing better sources, before I could consider keeping it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of WP:RS is not (or should not be) a ground for deletion where rthe subject is notable, as this one clearly is. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm disputing whether it is notable. I haven't seen any sources (independent or otherwise) that suggest that it even has as many as 10 parishes or congregations.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I'm coming from. As far as I can tell, it has a house church called a "cathedral", a few house churches in the Phillipines, a few self-styled priests and Patriarchs, and possibly one house-church in America. There are many non-notable congregations in America that have as many or more house-churches and house Bible studies, etc. I can find no verifiable number on the size of this congregatiomination, so I must assume it's quite small or active only in a few (or one) localities, as evidenced by the pastoral letter cited. JohnChrysostom (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The link to an independent website supporting the 1,000,000 members claim doesn't seem to work. But this indicates that it is certainly notable - a pastoral letter concerning the ACC read out in all churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Novaliches in April and May 2008. St Anselm (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we can establish through non-self published sources is that 1) this group exists, it's led by a self-styled Patriarch Teruel, and was founded by that man's mother. This article, if not deleted, should be merged to be a sub-section in Independent Catholic Churches. I've been to parishes (Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus) where they've read a letter concerning a new small Church opening to deal with overflow in the parish, an FSSP priest arriving that's going to start celebrating the EF Mass to please traditionalists, or a visit by Scott Hahn to one of the Churches in the diocese: does that mean that every new Church, new celebrant priest, change of the form of Mass, or even every single visit by Scott Hahn is notable? JohnChrysostom (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You get pastoral letters from your bishop regarding visits by Scott Hahn? St Anselm (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tacked on to the routine pastoral letters (i.e. ones that regularly are issued at solemnities), yes, as far as I understand it (it may not be a part of the pastoral letter itself?). I can't find an archive of them online, but I do know that specific pastoral letters have been issued:

1) about a specific church (Holy Family) with a priest starting to celebrate the Latin mass (in communion with Rome) since the current EF church was overcrowded,
2) the differences between SSPX and the Catholic Church (in the same letter as [1] above)
3) about the opening of new churches, and
4) a general warning about "cults" (fundies) that were standing outside of churches handing out anti-Catholic literature and cursing Papalism, etc. (separate from letter [1] above).

That doesn't make the new priest celebrating the Latin mass notable, nor does it make the opening of the new parish notable, nor does it make the local branch of "Fundamentalists United for the Bible Against Romanism" (FUBAR) notable, except in list form in an article on "Diocese of Columbus", if that (only for new churches). Following similar reasoning, it stands that this should be merged in to Independent Catholic Churches, as not being notable except as an Independent Catholic Church, just as the local branch of FUBAR isn't notable, except in the general sense that anti-Catholicism is. JohnChrysostom (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs rewriting, but the source provided by StAnselm and this news article show that this is a notable denomination. Unfortunately the bulk of the sources are in Tagalog, but that is no reason to delete the article, although editing for NPOV is clearly needed. -- 202.124.72.112 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- However badly written the article may be and however lacking in independent citations, this is not an article about a sinlge congretation, but about a denomination. As such it is certainly notable. Occidental users may need to be reminded that English language sources on developing countries are liable to be scarce. They should not expect the same level of sources as they would on a denomination of a similar size in USA or England. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is a review of the sources currently cited in this article. (The numbers given are the current footnote numbers, which are subject to change.)
1. http://www.acc-ingkong.com/ is the church's own web site.
2. http://uw.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/microsites/TheCorrespondents/TheCorrespondents/tc04052004sekta.htm is a page where the connection times out and the page doesn't load.
3. http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/1/2/ is another page from the church's own web site.
4. http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txs/secondvc.htm doesn't mention this church.
5. http://acc-ingkong.com/content/view/2/4/ is another page from the church's own web site.
6. http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/65/41 is another page from the church's own web site.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Episcopal_Polity&action=edit&redlink=1 is a broken link to another page here on Wikipedia. The correct link, Episcopal polity, doesn't mention this church anyway.
8. http://paleo-orthodoxy.com/ is a domain for sale which no longer has any content.
9. http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/4/8/ is another page from the church's own web site.
10. http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/6/5/ is another page from the church's own web site.
11. http://www.nccphilippines.org/index_files/Page519.htm is a "404 Not Found" page. In fairness, though, another page can be found to replace it.
12. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Anglicans-943/Saints-Anglican-Church.htm doesn't mention this church.
13. Same URL as #2 -- the connection times out and the page doesn't load.
14. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/news/11/21/08/churches-unite-rh-bill is a dead link. However, the correct link appears a couple of lines below.
- Of the remaining unnumbered links, the "ACC home" is the same link to the church's own web site. "ABS-CBN news" is [1] (which should replace note 14), which is acceptable for use as a source. "Apostolic Catholic Church (Sacrifice Valley) report" is the same broken link in notes 2 and 13 above. And the external link is the church's own web site once again. So that makes 8 links to the church's own web site, 2 links that don't mention this church, 5 links (cited a total of 7 times) that are broken, defunct or otherwise non-functional, and 1 link to a relevant independent source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for breaking it down so that it's easy to see for everyone who looks here. That's what I saw, but was too lazy to do anything other than say, "all the refs are either WP:SPS, unreliable, or unreadable [broken or not in English]". JohnChrysostom (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's not the issue. We all know the article is terribly bad, but (per WP:BEFORE), the issue for AfD is what sources exist, and the two sources in the discussion above are not in that list. Nor are the numerous Tagalog sources. -- 202.124.73.22 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has linked to even one Tagalog-language source yet. And of the two additional sources linked in this discussion, [2] is a news article which mentions this church but is principally about the patriarch's brother (who headed a different church) being killed, and [3] is a reprinted pastoral letter being posted on a Multiply.com blog which may not have any official standing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StAnselm and 202.124.72.112. Meets WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the latest consensus is that we want to cover any verifiable denomination. This source, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, lists the Apostolic Catholic Church. This source has good detail. When I went into Google Books, I went through 10 pages and found two likely sources, but the text was restricted. There is a Brazilian Apostolic Catholic Church (ICAB) with a million members, also there is a church or churches from the mid 1800s that get most of the hits. Given that we want to cover this denomination, any other issues are editorial decisions that do not require AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you link to is written by the organization, and is not independent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A church which seriously claims one million members, even if it really doesn't have that many, is clearly notable. Arguments that the article is badly written don't wash, as AfD is the place to get articles deleted because they're non-notable not because they're badly written. The question is: "is this organisation notable enough for an article?" (the answer is clearly yes), not "is this article well-written enough to continue to exist in its present form?" (the answer is quite possibly no). Even cutting all but the first few sentences is a possibility and still doesn't make the article non-viable (see WP:Stub). Saying it's unsalvageable is drivel of the worst deletionist-serving variety. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the state of this article is seriously crappy, but that doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. Even if the article has to be gutted to be kept, I think even having a stub in place is better than nothing at all. As has been mentioned before, this church claims to be an entire denomination with over a million followers, and this confers notability, even if it is only true to an extent. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the actual analysis of the sources provided above. Coverage must obviously be independent to prove notability. And, contrary to what has been said here, all churches are not inherently notable. Comments like "A church which seriously claims one million members, even if it really doesn't have that many, is clearly notable" or that we "cover any verifiable denomination" are outright wrong and against the consensus of the GNG and WP:ORG and give away the weakness of the arguments made. Likewise, coverage that simply mentions the subject in a trivial context doesn't establish it as passing the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the claim that was made was that all denominations are notable, not all local churches. St Anselm (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I know, sorry for being unclear. I used churches in the sense of denomination, but the point still stands the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, guidelines are not immutable and inflexible and do not supersede common sense and actual opinions! They are guidelines! My comment was not "outright wrong" as you so charmingly put it, it was my opinion. And contrary to popular deletionist belief ("GNG is heaven-ordained and we cannot possibly go against it; opinions which differ from guidelines are the stuff of the devil; any argument which does not endlessly quote guidelines is weak"), that's what we come to AfDs to give. Tell me exactly what would be the point of having AfD discussions otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this (disregarding supporting points and guidelines) is the crux of my argument: anyone can start a house-church and claim 1 000 000 members, especially if he has family and that extended family owns a few houses in two different countries (which, based on my reading, seems to be what this is, based on the Pastoral Letter). No independent source gives any mention of the number of adherents. My opinion has been swayed to a merge to Independent Catholic Churches (as per my statements above, being notable as an ICC), and I do see some validity in the, "let's cut it down to a stub" train of thought that the keep voters are giving. I would also like to point out, as a reader above did, that "Apostolic Catholic Church" is nearly impossible to verify in references, as there are dozens of worldwide Christian Churches (including the two original and largest, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church,) that use the title in some way. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now lette us all do pray for an Admin who giveth our own creede more credence than that of the othere guyye; who decideth, for the Deletionifts, based on ftrengthe of Argument; for the Inclufionifts, bafed on ftrengthe of Confenfus. Up untill this AfD I cofidered myfelf an Inclufionift, concludinge that no Knowledge could be lofte, by Deleting an Advertifement. :-D St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't consider myself to be either. I'll delete non-notable drivel as readily as the next person. But I am getting tired of the deletionists' increasing attempts to get stuff deleted which is not, in my opinion as an experienced editor, non-notable by claiming that the Wikipedia community has somehow endorsed their own narrow views of notability by endorsing guidelines. Guidelines are just that - no definition of the word "guideline" inside or outside Wikipedia allows for the deletionist argument that a guideline is somehow set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where is the evidence that this denomination even claims to have 1 million members, much less actually has 1 million members? There are two different membership estimates in the article -- 1 million, and 5 million to 8 million. Both of them are sourced to the same source, http://uw.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/microsites/TheCorrespondents/TheCorrespondents/tc04052004sekta.htm , the page where the connection times out and the page doesn't load. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced in a circular manner, as far as I can tell. Abs-cbn times out no matter what (even the main site), but one can access it in the Google cache. However, trying to search for "abs-cbn news tc04052004sekta.htm" (the original URL of the reference) gives a bunch of references to the Apostolic Catholic Church, using Wikipedia's citation of that broken link as their source. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 05:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a matter of policy, the situation is clear. WP:V#Notability provides that: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Those who support keeping the article have provided no such sources, even though the WP:BURDEN of proof is on them. Instead, unrebutted analysis has shown that the sources currently known are not independent. Articles in Wikipedia must at all times be verifiable, that is, they must contain references to reliable sources that allow readers to independently verify the article's content. Because this article does not meet this core requirement even after a 7-day-AfD, it must be deleted. Sandstein 08:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maternal bond. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity[edit]

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

Dicdef, has not seen any growth since creation in 2004. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should turn this into a disambiguation page for Maternity leave and Maternal bond. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mother or maternal bond or something. The content needs to be scrapped, as it is garbage ("legal acknowledgment"?). Mark, read WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't seen that guideline before. But I think this falls under the so-called "Mississippi compromise". Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to maternal bond. Of the two options for redirects, this seems to convey the message of maternity the best. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Chala[edit]

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

Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete. The player in question has made appearances for C.D. Cuenca who play in the first tier of Ecuadorian football, however as this league is not featured in the list of fully professional leagues, does that mean that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL? If it does, I am for deleting since he fails WP:GNG as well. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the Ecuadorian Serie A is not fully-professional, which means playing in it does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Secondly, not that it matters given point one, but the statistics which claim to show appearances for Club Deportivo Cuenca are unreferenced and unverified. Giant Snowman 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, changed my view to delete. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage. As such, he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played for CD Cuenca in the group stage of the 2010 Copa Libertadores, see here and here. I think it's safe to say that any team playing in the group stage of the Copa Libertadores is professional. I suggest the previous two users re-evaluate their votes given the new information. Here's his SoccerWay profile for reference. TonyStarks (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but those two links are for 2010 Campeonato Ecuatoriano de Fútbol Serie A matches, not the 2010 Copa Libertadores. The 2010 Copa Libertadores page shows Cuenca as playing three group games (against Nacional of Uruguay, Banfield of Argentina and Club Atlético Morelia of Mexico) before being eliminated, but I can't find links to any of these matches using Socceray. My understanding of Ecuadorian football, and South American football overall, isn't the best so please tell me if I'm missing something. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - Sorry not sure what I was on, I guess I shouldn't be on Wikipedia at 5 in the morning :D .. you're right, he did not play in the Copa Libertadores like I had previously stated, it was the Ecuadorian league. Therefore, he's not notable. I change my vote to Delete (someone feel free to strike out my Keep and change it to delete .. can't figure out how to do it myself). TonyStarks (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can add <s></s> tags around the comment you want to strike. GiantSnowman 16:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done, thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pepsi EP[edit]

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

Article without source about an album with release limited and promotional for Pepsi. The article provides only the list of music and basic information about the EP, not entered into a chart or won an award, album without notoriety. Lucas S. ^msg 22:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lucas S. ^msg 22:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article in Spanish Wikipedia was also nominated for deletion. Lucas S. ^msg 22:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N.--Flores,Alberto (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete album without notoriety. Gury102 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shakira discography#Extended plays. Releases that don't justify a separate article should be merged/redirected to artist/discography articles.--Michig (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was moved during the AFD to the new title Queensland 1982 Airport robberies - but, since no substantive changes were made to the content of the article, I've deleted the new title as per the consensus here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Australia Airlines Flight 454[edit]

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

Interesting crime but WP:NOTNEWS should apply IF the story is true. This article has been tagged for over two years for its lacking citations. I've done a preliminary search of google, google news archive and Aviation Safety Network and came up with nada for the name of the pilot, one of the supposed quotes, and one of those arrested. [[WP:Hoax]] might also apply. William 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -William 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -William 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. All I can find is a one sentence blurb in this government report [Note: Word doc that is slow loading], that is cited verbatim in this newspaper article, but the newspaper article gives no additional commentary about the flight. I'm going with "weak" because I can imagine that there was more coverage at the time, but I have no proof of that. Location (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found a news article[4], so it did happen. The wikipedia article doesn't match the news story. This still fails WP:GNG- William 02:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Searching "Great Plane Robbery", there appears to be a little more here. Location (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the article's two references (i.e. "Interview Captain David Spring-Brown with Greg Weir (29th March 2008)") appears to be a primary source that likely fails WP:RS, however, the captain's name is confirmed in this roster and in this portrait. Location (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It appears the event occurred. There is another story (replica of the one quoted above by William) in the New Straits Times dated 23/9/1982 [5] and in the Los Angeles Times. The story also appears on a search of the SMH Archives, Sunday, November 11, 1990 (can only read a small extract without a subscription) Geez-oz (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the event occurred as four seperate news sources have now been identified (quoted above). The event is notable as 20 years after the event it is quoted in a this ATSB Government Report Geez-oz (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Move or Merge - Find another project to put this in as it will only get deleted if you leave it in Aviation.Petebutt (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though there is some evidence that the event occurred, I think "some evidence" is too poor a standard for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Before we even get to considering notability and WP:NOTNEWS, we have to be absolutely certain that the event took place, and there seems to be some doubt. In its current form the article just reads like one huge trivia piece, and when I consider how long the article has been tagged for without eliciting any improvement, I reach the conclusion that the best option is to get rid. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jumeirah Lake Towers. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lake View Tower[edit]

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

Lacks substantial non-trivial RS coverage in and of itself (as distinct, perhaps, from all towers in all sectors, combined, of JLT). Tagged for zero refs for well over 2 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently no content worth keeping, its a one line stub.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jumeirah Lake Towers. Jumeirah Lake Towers has (or will have) 79 towers and I don't know as we need articles for each. There is an article for Almas Tower bu that is centerpiece and twice the height of Lake View Tower. And there's nothing in this article to make a merge worthwhile. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Resource Center[edit]

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

This organization does exist, but lacks substantial independent non-trivial RS coverage. Tagged for reliance on primary sources for over 4 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has not been the subject of vandalism and is in a poor corner of the world making organic growth unlikely to occur as fast as it can in the west. As it is verified we must consider is such an institution generally notable or GN if it has the sources to prove it, the answer in the west is undoubtedly yes, but could be harder in this little pocket of the world. It is doing no harm as is and I bet it will be improve by perhaps someone traveling to the area that picks up a local paper in a few years time and that would be great, but we have to keep it to let that happen.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I got as far as your first clause, and am confused. Who said this was "the subject of vandalism"? If nobody said that, what is the relevance of the fact you assert -- that it is "not the subject of vandalism"?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if we acknowledge Systemic bias, this NGO appears to be limited in scope based on this press release which describes it as a local organisation, and its own web site that declares its focus on Sindh. Given that there is no coverage in reliable sources, and the WP:NGO guideline looks for organisations that are national or international in scope, there is no compelling reason to keep this article based on policy and guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Tawil[edit]

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

This person fails WP:BASIC: he is not the subject of substantial, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. I removed some cites that had nothing to do with the claims made; please keep in mind the citations provided might be bogus. Through searching, I can't find any particular basis for notability. JFHJr (㊟) 18:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- being a secondary businessman and a collector is hardly of particular notability. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most substantial reference is the "Children's business" interview, but that in insufficient to establish individual notability either through business or collection. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Stifle (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Monro Jnr[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG questionable, to say the least. bender235 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no doubt in my mind that this article was a COI situation, driven by a publicist. I had some dealings with it roughly a year ago & tracked the editor down off-wiki. It was not difficult. On the other hand, there were claims of some big following in the Philipines and I regret that I did not follow that through, after ascertaining that the sources provided were inappropriate. He may indeed be notable there - do we have a Philippines project? Is it worth posting anote there? - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could always leave a note at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. They have robust discussions on their talkpage, so your note would likely reach some people.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Matt Monro Jr. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way before my time, but a search in Google News Archives reveals a lot of secondary sources from the Philippines.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough GNews coverage to support a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McAloon[edit]

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

No notability whatsoever, per WP:ANYBIO or any other guideline. bender235 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—It's usually a bad sign when an article uses links to other Wikipedia pages as references. No mentions in RSes. A totally unreferenced BLP. Could be BLP-PRODed, or probably even CSD-A7'ed, but since we're already here... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arguably a speedy delete; there is absolutely no coverage about this person to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Cap LMS[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. PROD removed in conjunction with source clean-up, but remaining sources don't establish notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable software that can be searched and found through out the internet. The references/sources provided prove that it's wiki worthy. This item is searched, reviewed and discussed by third (unbiased) parties in the e-Learning software industry. Please help me understand what would be considered a "better" source than the ones already provided. TabithaFournier (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N. It is a long guideline, but understanding it will save you a lot of wiki-pain going forward. In short, in order to have a stand-alone article, a subject must be notable. Notability is measured by coverage in reliable sources. WP:RS is another long read, but it clearly explains what is a reliable source, and what isn't. To meet the notability guideline, a subject must have multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article either are not reliable, or are trivial mentions. Notability (to Wikipedia's standards) is not established. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say... If you can provide links to the reviews and discussions by unbiased third parties, then the subject will be proven notable... But those reviews and discussions are not cited in the article today. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, I do have links for reviews and discussions. Am I too list them in the article as opposed to using them as a reference? Is this correct? TabithaFournier (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should add the link to the ADL where the Thinking Cap LMS is listed as a certified LMS. It was only the 3rd LMS to be certified as SCORM 2004 Certified which is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.216.90 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain this very clearly... You need coverage in an independent, reliable publication. Multiple instances of such coverage are generally used to indicate notability. Being the 3rd LMS to be certified does not indicate that the subject is notable. An independent journal, periodical, etc. publishing a story or article that includes this fact in the article does indicate that the subject is notable. The webpage of the product itself, the webpage of the people giving out the certification, or even a press release about the certification are not reliable sources. It doesn't need to be in the Wall Street Journal or anything like that, but just in a publication (electronic or print) that has editorial oversight. So if there is a journal for the field of LMS, or even a general education journal, this would be perfect. But if the author of an article is also the publisher (for example a press release, a blog, or an individual person or company's website) then it is not reliable.

Once you have found coverage like this, you should use the sources to improve the Wikipedia article. If the published article says that Thinking Cap was certified, then add a section to the Wikipedia article that summarizes this and use your published article as a citation. If you need technical help citing your references look at WP:CITE and WP:ILC. Look at other articles, like any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles for examples of how citations get added to articles. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't seem to have any real, lasting notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient third party coverage references to meet WP:N. Sandstein 08:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Widdowson[edit]

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

This author lacks substantial RS coverage, from what I can see on gnews and gbooks, and his article has zero refs. Tagged as an orphan for nearly 3 years, and for lack of refs and notability since October. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Links to his supposed book are all dead, author appears nowhere in Google (news, web, etc) except for dead links from forum posts. Nothing to see here, please move along. (This could probably have been BLP-PRODed, or even CSD'd) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neasi-Weber International[edit]

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable software company. The organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another business that develops software solutions for publishers advertising on Wikipedia. They apparently make software for running newspapers, and that's way too back-office for a stand alone article in the absence of some kind of showing of significant effect on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I could find one trivial mention in a newspaper, other than that no coverage in WP:RS. Delete per nom and above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web of Dreams[edit]

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

This page has a lack of real world notability. It's entire page consists of plot summary and character profiles. There is nothing more to add. Everything about this article that needs to be said is already on the V.C. Andrews page. The entire Casteel series is listed on that page. There is nothing else to add. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not established by the type of content which the article contains. Plot and characters are relevant to a comprehensive understanding of the book itself. Please see WP:NBOOK for good justifications for non-notability. The author is fairly notable, and I would argue that significant coverage of the content of her work is appropriate, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I concur that the author is indeed notable, that's no reason why her books deserve a seperate page all on their own. They are mentioned on the authors' page, and the entire Casteel series is summarized there. In order for a book to merit its own article, it should have an impact on society, or some form of controversy that makes it notable. I'm not sure I described that right, but the book by itself is not notable. Even the series by itself is not notable, though I may concede that point given a good argument. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To further add to my above comment, I did check out WP:NBOOK. If the author is historically notable, then extensive coverage of their work can be justified. But although V.C. Andrews may be popular, I doubt she is considered historically notable. Perhaps this is where the debate begins. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 13. Snotbot t • c » 01:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Delete There's simply no strong justifiable reason to keep this article. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (I read German and confirm that the German sources cited do appear at first glance to be substantial coverage.) Sandstein 08:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check MK[edit]

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

Computer program with dubious notability. Zzarch (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed some of the links. Can only do the rest on the weekend.

Current google hits: (from germany) 160K, more when combining check_mk + nagios.

Please feel invited to verify the notability by digging deeper, i.e. many blog and forum articles. If using Google for research, please note the google correction for the spelling. It's "Check_MK", not "Check MK" :) I hope people verifying this know a little about Nagios? Another thing in terms of notability: AFAIK it is the only completed tool which can do fully / dynamic rule-based configuration, which goes well with the typical DevOps admin toolset, and it's the only one that gives realtime access to Nagios' internals. There is a reason why other projects like shinken, thruk, iciniga ... are used with this software. Fheigl 01:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not a reason to keep the article. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, while reading other discussions here. I didn't mean the number of hits is the point. The point is that using gooogle people verifying notability should be able to dig out things like i.e. the nagios portal section for check_mk. I have later added this as an external link in the article. Fheigl (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Check_MK is a very noteable piece of software, it has revolutionised the use of Nagios in our business and appears to have a big following in the DevOps world. It deserves to be documented in Wikipedia in my opinion, so I oppose the deletion.
Please add independent reliable sources demonstrating this notability. Hasteur (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, Check_Mk is a great piece of software used world wide that makes the monitoring of hundreds of computers possible. Besides, the author made it free (no cost) for every one. It is a great project that must me kept in wikipedia so other users can know about it and benefit fom it. I think it could be even motivational for the author to continue maintaining and improving the software. vortiz187.153.227.215 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Motivation for the author falls on under the promotional guidelines and therefore an invalid reason for keeping. Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Check_MK is a valuable asset to a Nagios administrator and is very notable among them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.138.68 (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Please add independent reliable sources to demonstrate the notability. Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.202.4 (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of this Wikipedia page. Check_mk is a great tool that makes Nagios even more powerful yet saves resources. It simplifies Nagios and the multisite is by far the best I have used. Please keep!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.24.11 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources to demonstrate the notability. Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, but why does stuff like the nagios author doing an interview with the check_mk about the advantages of check_mk not count? I'd be thankful if you could explain, I have read-and-reread the guidelines but am fresh to this nonetheless. (not saying "keep", being the article author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fheigl (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tepid Keep—Does seem to have coverage (reviews?) in German-lanuguage Linux magazines like this and this. I don't know enough German, but I wonder if this software isn't notable within its niche? Any German speakers out there? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had not added german links since they're harder to verify. [6] and [7] would be a little more thorough articles.Fheigl (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a German source to the article and the software seems notable per the sources. A412 (Talk * C) 06:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Tala'e[edit]

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

Completely non notable team, from a town in Libya which isn't notable enough to even have a page. I think lots of these Libyan football clubs should be deleted, but I have no idea how to go about nominating the 50 odd clubs that aren't notable. Jeancey (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Probably qualifies for speedy delete under A7 too. Cloudz 679 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Quest (musician)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reerences provided to verify notability.Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I searched, news, web, etc. and couldn't find anything. Non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never.no[edit]

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

May be worthy of being saved, but there appears to be little info to rely on other than the company's own web site. Has an "advert" feel, and is without valid references. Possible WP:COI Taroaldo (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable advertisement. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks any notable encyclopedic content. Cloudz 679 12:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cloudz. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt it has a chance to improve if it's COI. Perhaps because it's from Norway, I haven't found any news coverage aside from this small mention here. If this article has a chance, it's better to start new. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Costa Concordia disaster. per WP:SNOW Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Schettino[edit]

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

Contested prod. Opening a more formal AFD based on cycle of redirects and replacement of that redirect with short biographical articles which essentially summarize the target of the redirect Costa Concordia disaster. While this person is known worldwide as the captain of this wrecked cruiseship, this is all he's known for and there isn't sufficient material to draw on outside of this event to overcome WP:BIO1E. RadioFan (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BLP1E, though with no prejudice as to possible future notability.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worth noting that the Italian version of this article has been deleted multiple times.--RadioFan (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster. Schettino is only known for the one event and there's no indication he'll be of lasting significance.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One-eventer, belongs inside the Concordia article only. Some people's passions are inflamed at the moment due to recency. Let's avoid the hassle of re-deleting the article next year after no one cares about him any more. - Frankie1969 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Lock to prevent recreation. Please know that 4 different admins have deleted him from the Italian Wikipedia, and they are in a better position to judge the sources than we are. Speciate (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster, although opening an AfD wasn't the best way to resolve the disagreement, as no one is arguing for deletion. Anyhow, Schettino does not pass WP:BLP1E at this time, and a redirect to the main article would be optimum. Goodvac (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted in the nomination, this AFD was opened to provide a more formal process. The article has been redirected and rewritten several times. Having an AFD to point to when an action that is contrary to concensus is much easier to get admin action on than pointing to a disjointed Talk page discussion. Paperwork such as this is an unfortunately reality.--RadioFan (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That formal process could have been a talk page discussion with votes, closed by an admin after seven days. Goodvac (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: In the future, why not invite people from the Wikipedia of X language when discussing sources in that language on here? They can help WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster and either semi- or full-protect the redirect to prevent it from being abused for all the wrong reasons. Far too early to be creating a separate article for this man when his only claim to notability is inextricably bound up with the shipwreck's notability. Super Mario Man 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster until (if) it meets the bar similar to the captain of the Exxon Valdez. --Varaldarade (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As I have already written [8], my tagging the article for deletion was a bit hasty, and as some users have pointed out there are indeed examples in Wikipedia where less notable individuals have their own entry. Nonetheless I think a redirect is the best solution for the time being. Itemirus^{Message me!} 08:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --dionyziz (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. When the dust settles from the Costa Concordia disaster, perhaps then it can be better determined if Schettino needs his own article. I agree with Varaldarade's thought of Schettino needing to meet the notability of someone like the Exxon Valdez captain. — Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or rather, Needed (normally, an article in question can be reviewed and improved, why not here?) Anyhow, the single-event rule is not absolute and states specifically that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This applies to Francesco Schettino. While FS's life is not an open book, early profiles have appeared in the press and give us information and had been referenced. Thus age, place of birth/upbringing, education, duration of service, career at Costa: all this is known, and there is no overriding need to withhold this information from WP readers. Further, there is the issue of FS's treatment in the media which would be of interest to place in the WP article: FS is vilified as the "most hated man in Italy", a womanizer, coward, autocrat, daredevil, accused of insubordination, etc. Then there are he legal proceedings that are starting to unfurl with him in the center. The idea, let us wait and see how things develop, maybe later an article can be generated, - this it not how articles about people in the news are typically generated. People in entertainment, sports, and politics become eligible for a WP entry once they reach notability, not at some ill-defined point later. Schettino is notable because: 1. Just being the captain of the largest passenger ship ever that capsized makes him notable already. But also, 2. Highly visible deviation of time-homered maritime custom when a captain should leave the ship 3. Role in death of passengers 4. Role in saving passengers 5. Unfolding legal proceedings 6. Treatment in media/media frenzy.Ekem (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster. IMO: even if he is convicted and sentenced to prison in the future his sole claim to notability (in this case notoriety) is in relation to the disaster, and any updates re Schettino should be done at the Costa Concordia article. Quis separabit? 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend closing this discussion as redirect under WP:SNOWBALL, given the almost unanimous (with two exceptions) consensus on this forum. Quis separabit? 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) (comment updated)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't have an objection to speedy closure per WP:SNOWBALL with the result of redirect to Costa Concordia disaster and full-protection for at least 6 months. RadioFan (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or rather, Needed Pretty much what Ekem said. I would say this falls into the "assassination" example in WP:BLP1E quiet nicely as he could be described as assassinating the ship. He is cited in the main article and by multiple sources as the primary (or even sole) cause of the shipwreck. His Arrest is notable, but a full write up about his arrest doesn't belong in the article about the disaster. His pending trial is notable and while information revealed at trail will be used in the article about the disaster the trial itself will doesn't belong. There is already a great deal of information regarding this man that shouldn't be in the article but is notable and should have wikipedia entries. Tmckeage (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Much of the hype over this article is a good example of WP:RECENTISM on wikipedia. After a first initial flurry of edits and articles, which reflected the sudden surge of news reports in the immediate aftermath of the sinking, this is now tailing off. News reports are fewer, the rolling coverage is being replaced with occasional updates. He is notable for WP:ONEEVENT at the moment, and my feeling is that the level of interest currently seen in him will not be sustained enough for 'the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role' to merit a separate article. As an aside, an even more borderline example of this is the creation of the article on Sándor Fehér, who is one of what looks to be sadly over a dozen people to have died in this incident, but not otherwise independently notable beyond the circumstances of his death. But like Schettino the papers are scrambling to make a big deal about him. This article should probably be redirect/deleted as well. Benea (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and have redirected it accordingly. At the time of writing, Costa Concordia disaster makes no mention whatsoever of Fehér, so I struggle to see any justification at all for a WP:SPINOUT article in this case. Super Mario Man 11:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm the one who created this, and I did so as a redirect. ThFSPB (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There has been no article to discuss until now, just a "redirect". The tag says clearly "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked." So, here you have now an article with you can talk about.Ekem (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The last "article" version is available here if anyone needs to see it.--RadioFan (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Driouchi[edit]

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

Whether senior lecturer or associate professor, neither are top level professorships needed to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Has no highly cited papers either according to GS. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see anything in the article or from the above Google searches that would meet the criteria given at Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Qwfp (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarius Widya[edit]

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

Hoax article, no Indonesian international player named Hilarius Widya. The references in the article are a personal website and a wikipedia content hosted by other website — MT (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. MT (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, also possibly a hoax. Giant Snowman 18:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most likely a hoax, therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Probable hoax. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Looks like someone just wanted to write an article about himself. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrordrome (Game)[edit]

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

Unnotable fan-made game. The article contains no sources, and when I searched, I could not find a single reliable third party source that mentioned the game. The article was previously turned down as a Speedy Deletion, however I still feel that it it eligible for deletion for failing Wikipedia: Notability Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fan game. (If this were a legitimate game, it'd either get all sorts of coverage, and/or be in all sorts of legal trouble for using other company's IP. That, coupled with the creators only credentials are "Youtube User" makes me think this is not passing WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, this is a non-notable fan game (the creators of which did apparently get in some trouble for using the IP). Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks sweet, but unfortunately I can't find any relevant sourcing for the article. Someone another 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no significant coverage found in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources found... add them to article. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (warn) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BGC Partners[edit]

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

Already twice deleted for lack of sources. I've removed a reasonably legitimate CSD from this latest creation due to the discussion on the talk page, but rather than PROD it (one deletion was through expired PROD) although I do realise that AfD is not a call for sources or clean up, I'm going to let the community decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also see correspondence on User talk:JoolsRun. None of the versions of the article so far have been referenced, with only linking being to the company site. The creator of the current version seems not to want to provide references despite two of us explaining that they are needed. One of the businesses referred to as being part of this group does not have that information in its Wikipedia article - in that, this article is ahead of the editing at Newmark Knight Frank and Knight Frank (both of which are poorly referenced). I presume this business is notable as it has a notable subsidiary - but that does not always follow as many notable companies belong to rather unnotable holding companies - but this isn't really made clear. Sponsoring an event isn't notable enough for an article, it merely means someone's got money. Peridon (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator. I'm even less inclined to look for sources now than I was when it was so rudely demanded of me a while ago just 5 minutes after creation, but I will repeat here, I would be amazed if a NASDAQ company with offices around the world that is sponsoring a major sports tournament like the Masters snooker, did not have the required coverage out there for an article here, certainly up to the WP:GNG standard. I will note that at no point does it look like anyone has even bothered to look for them though, which clearly violates WP:BEFORE. I had a look at the company specific WP:CORP guideline, and frankly it's gobbledygook to me. I am dismayed that it now appears that posting simple factual information is automatically considered promotion/advertising in Wikipedia, but whatever. Do what you want with it, I really don't care. I can't even get the Masters snooker tournament page into a state where it would be easy for readers to see who the hell the title sponsor is, and as we see here - there's probably no point looking for them under their own article either! Some encyclopoedia. It's ironic that the company seems to think that they are so well known that people will just know who they are from seeing their BGC logo on television. How little they know! JoolsRun (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We understand you frustration, but this article has been deleted twice before for lack of sources - our major policy; that it's promotional is a minor issue, but please understand that Wikipedia is not a B2B listing site either. Even if the article doesn't have a promotional tone, we do not volunteer our time here to provide free publicity for big budget corporations, and we resent the comments you have made about our editors and our perfectly clear guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are out there, they're bound to be, but you've pissed me off so much I'm not going to look for them myself. But your ideas about how this article in its created state is just a free b2b listing are laughable - sorry if you resent that, but they are. I volunteered my time to create this article because I wanted to know who BGC were, and to my mind, they are obviously notable. So the article was deleted twice before - so what? I was given 5 minutes to add references, and your request was not a polite enquiry, but that hostile aggressive suspicious notice taking up the whole page. Very nice. What's to say you lot didn't do just as bad a job the last two times? How many times do you think an actual city trader knowledgable about BGC would waste his time with this crap? This past history shows nothing except perhaps you're all way too paranoid, and WP:BEFORE is just a fantasy. You keep on like this, and nobody will ever write about companies for Wikipedia, notable or not, certainly not inexperienced editors. You're almost encouraging paid editting with this approach - who is going to put up with all this shite if they weren't being paid to spend the time getting it perfect first time? As we see, all you experienced editors seem content to delete first, think later. JoolsRun (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant guideline here is WP:LISTED which concurs with JoolsRun that listed companies will most likely have sufficient independent coverage to confer notability - and reminds both the author to provide them and anyone proposing deletion to check for them. In this case [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] seem to confer a sufficient degree of notability for inclusion. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my response above. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by RichardOSmith, there are also further sources: REJournals.com, Forbes and Beacon Equity Research. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and redirect to Masters_(snooker) - Only seeing weak promo sources presented here - redirect to the only thing notable about it - this years sponsor of, or one of the sponsors of Masters (snooker) - You really can 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some sense or other. At worst as pointed out above, we gots a redirect location, which means there is simply no reason/need to deletearoonisky this article. Can I get an AMEN? --WR Reader (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many references exist so the subject satisfies notability. AfD is not for cleanup. Night Ranger (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Very weak sources, including an unaudited blog by Ian Fraser a freelance journalist, whose own and reliabiity appears not to be asserted as WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a well known company and as the original creator opined in quoted on Nasdaq. The article does have a place here and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallen2006 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I came here to find out who "bgc" were after seeing their name as sponsor of the televised snooker tournament. I was pleased to find the information in the article. 86.176.208.199 (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the sources found by RichardOSmith, the Telegraph story is a reliable source, and this Ian Fraser blog entry possibly is. (The others seem to be PR about their charitable activities.) The current article, by contrast, doesn't resemble a story that has been written from what sources say at all, and instead contains only the usual complete bollocks about being a global financial services company and goes on to tell you that they operate offices around the world. In any case, the current article text makes no case for inclusion, and the sources about their dodgy recruiting and buyout practices don't establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture, or establish why this vaguely described holding or investment company should be remembered until the end of time in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, the so called "complete bollocks" this person refers to, comes from the company's own site, easily verifiable with a click or two. And in my school I was taught that the word "global" means 'around the globe', which they evidently are. And the NASDAQ listing, the 'complete bollocks', and the snooker sponsorship, represent a case for inclusion, that's surely a basic fact. As for whether it's significant enough or not for Wikipedia, or what the sources prove or don't as regards WP:ORIGIN, well, you can continue to argue amongst yourselves about that, I'm still staying out of it. JoolsRun (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications billing[edit]

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

Page consists almost-entirely of a collection of commercial links a13ean (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 20. Snotbot t • c » 16:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been renamed to List of telecommunications billing companies; a more accurate title per the article's content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "WP is not a directory." If there is something special about telemmunications billing that makes it notable beyond any other kind of billing, then write an article on that. Otherwise WP is not for lists of service providers. Borock (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NOTDIR has eight subpoints; which of them is the above !vote referring to? Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Mainly #4 "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." Borock (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  And in any case I would note that WP:NOT points out the examples given are not intended to be exhaustive. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Nageh (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTDIR has eight subpoints; which of them is the above !vote referring to? Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had exactly the same discussion just before. And again, WP:NOTDIR#4 fully applies: Wikipedia articles are not directories or directory entries. Most of the entries are red-links or non-existent links, and those which are blue links link to the company and not the product. As such, simply a directory of commercial products without sufficient notability. I agree that the list could be useful to some but we are not a sales platform. Examples like this are exactly why we have WP:NOTDIR. Nageh (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is congruent with WP:SALAT, (Appropriate topics for lists). It is focused and discriminate based upon companies and computer systems specifically related to telecommunications billing. This is a reasonable content fork from the Telecommunication article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been cleaned-up, more references have been added, many primary, some secondary, at this time. (I'm already aware that primary sources cannot be used to establish topic notability.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles Telecommunications billing and List of telecommunications billing companies (more properly, List of telecommunications billing vendors) could be created, but should be based on reliable sources (in case of a list especially inclusion criteria should be based on sources), Bezik (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big list of non-notable companies just serves as a spam magnet. If you removed all the nn companies, and all the companies where the only reference is their own Web site, you're left with virtually nothing. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 18:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marnick Vermijl[edit]

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

Vermijl has never played a competitive, first-team match for a professional club, neither is he notable for any other reason, meaning that he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure why this has been put up for AfD, when its PROD had been left uncontested? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, no one removed the PROD, so why has it come here? – Pee Jay 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure why this has been brought to AfD when the PROD was uncontested, but nonetheless, this player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also, why was the article creator not notified of either the PROD or the AfD? This was a good faith creation and a bit of common courtesy wouldn't go amiss. Giant Snowman 22:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, not that it needed to come to AfD. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. No need for an AfD, but there we go. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No need to put it up for AfD. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 Azadegan League[edit]

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

Results page for second highest division in a sport in one country. Tagged as unreferenced since October 2006. Does not appear to satisfy verifiability or notability. Edison (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable" according to Wikipedia:FOOTYN, thus the article should satisfy notability. Referencing needs to be added though, is the notability criteria enough to keep the article? --Reckless182 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, here is the reference, just scroll down you'll see the final table of 2002-2003 First Division (2nd Level) here http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/iran03.html Joojoo ra
keep, as mentioned above, we have a legitimate source and reference.Nokhodi (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Ryan[edit]

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

The article does not indicate that she passes WP:NACTOR. Additionally, it is a BLP sourced only to IMDb. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be expanded but has had significant acting career. PatGallacher (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Major roles in Edward the Seventh (plus a BAFTA nomination) and The Elephant Man, and the lead in the short-lived Hanna are sufficient to (barely) satisfy WP:NACTOR IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Ford[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Most of the claims made (e.g. "important stage actress") have no real support. Additionally, it is sourced only to IMDb. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be expanded but did have significant acting career. PatGallacher (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per [14] (published by Da Capo Press), [15] (published by Hal Leonard Corporation), [16] (published by Oxford University Press), [17], [18], [19], and [20] (published by Hal Leonard Corporation). Why not search for sources? SL93 (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No support for "important stage actress"? She played the lead in at least three or four Broadway plays: Chee-Chee, Peggy-Ann, Dearest Enemy and Helen of Troy[21][22][23] (her name is prominent on the posters in the linked articles). She was "Rodgers, Hart, and Fields' favorite"[24], and according to this source "romantically involved with Rodgers". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn per SL93 Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Same Sky[edit]

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

No evidence that this passes WP:NFILM (it is actually a play) or WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, contains significant claim to notability. If it is a play not sure what NFILM has to do with it. PatGallacher (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per [25] (Published by State University of New York Press), [26], [27] (published by Taylor & Francis), 1952 Billboard, 1952 Billboard, and snippets in the Google Books search engine dating back to 1952. New Statesman - "The production, by Dennis Vance and Peter Cotes, of The Same Sky gave viewers the chance to see for the first time the work of one of the very best of our younger actresses, Yvonne Mitchell. The Same Sky is her own play, and whether you ...", The Cambridge Review - "1951 - THEATRE THE SAME SKY By Yvonne Mitchell at the Arts Theatre Take two families, East End both of them, one British and the ... So Yvonne Mitchell's The Same Sky is a play of the bitterest conflict : on one side the battle-cry is of true ...", Playbill - "London born, Miss Mitchell was accepted into the Michel St. Denis Theatre School, a beginning made in the face of ... The Same Sky, her first produced play, won the Arts Council of Great Britain Award and she has had published a ...", and many more. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done, SL93--thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SL93. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isango[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertising. Most of the "award" actually are only nominations Philafrenzy (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 20. Snotbot t • c » 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable travel agency. One sure sign of a non-notable business is an attempt to construct an AfD case in the article text itself, as if the author were expecting it to be nominated for deletion: leadership in the travel experiences sector has been recognised through various awards and nominations.... The company has received much attention in the business and venture capitalist world.... Unfortunately, petty trade awards and financing press releases don't turn a business into something that should be remembered for all time in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Dozen (bicycle competition)[edit]

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

~~Not annual, since it has only happened once.~~ Local coverage only. From the one local RS it has a $15 registration fee, it doesn't take out permits with the cities it runs through, there's no title sponsor, and the 13 finish lines are hand-drawn orange chalk lines on the streets. Maybe someday it will be notable, but right now it ~~was a one time event that got one local article, making~~ it short of WP:N. WP:TOOSOON applies. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Only happened once? According to the Post-Gazette article it has been running since 1983. It certainly sounds like an annual race. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on that point. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The event has been going on for many years, and has attracted a reasonable amount of local coverage. There've also been some out-of-town sources: this entry in Biking Bis, which appears to be a high-end biking blog; this article at the Cincinnati Cycle Club site; and this piece in Wired. The business Global Ride Productions, which peddles first-person biking DVDs, sells one for this ride, available through Amazon; note that their other DVDs depict rides in places like France, Italy, and Hawaii, so they're definitely not just a local Pittsburgh business. I'm not sure what notability standards would apply to a situation like this, and WP:NSPORTS is fairly useless on the matter; but I think this article has at least some claim to meet WP:GNG. Needs considerable work by someone who cares about the subject; but that's not especially relevant to the AfD process. Ammodramus (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Feature in Wired combined with other sources seems sufficient to me to pass WP:GNG Pol430 talk to me 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic receives significant coverage in reliable sources; topic passes WP:GNG:

Sean D. Hamill (2011-11-27). "Defying the Dirty Dozen: Cyclists take on steepest of Pittsburgh's steep hills". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2012-01-12.
Price, Karen (November 28, 2010). "Pittsburgh cycling diehards attack 'Dirty Dozen'". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved January 20, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
The Steepest Road On Earth Takes No Prisoners. Wired 1 December 2010

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALTISSIA[edit]

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

This software doesn't look notable. I can't find any sources on Google News, Books, or Scholar, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Non-notable series of language learning software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above rationales and entirely promotional nature. Pol430 talk to me 15:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TigerHeat[edit]

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

Artticle's principal contributor appears to be in conflict of interest. I don't see any sources that would attest to its notability. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a promotional group specializing in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) club events. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources cited are a bunch of blogs and casual mentions. I'm not precisely heartened by zero G-News hits for "TigerHeat" + "Los Angeles." [28]. Fails the GNG. Ravenswing 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Ravenswing's rationale. Notability not established. Pol430 talk to me 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sourcing to show notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Stifle (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doublemoon[edit]

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

Non-notable record label/company. Was initially a 1 line stub until user 'Doublemoon' wrote the remainder of the article between 2007-09. No independent sources. No WP article exists on Turkish WP for Doublemoon or its parent company. I can find no significant online coverage that isn't a mirror of the English WP article. NB all the signed artists are non-notable and/or self-cited. Sionk (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i'd say keep... their catalog may be niché, but it certainly is pretty impressive. Candymoan (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could explain why the list makes Doublemoon notable. Organisations and companies need to have significant coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Sionk (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Try clicking the · books · link in the findsources template, or indeed the · news · one. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read them, Anonymous IP? They are generally brief mentions in relation to information about music artists. I'm not sure whether half a paragraph in a 200 page book is significant coverage. Sionk (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what "half a paragraph" you are referring to, since it isn't the three grafs in Global Beat Fusion [29] or the four in Music and Solidarity [30] or much of the essay on Aziza A.'s "Outro" (from Kindi Dunyam) in New Perspectives on Turkey Volume 3, Issue 1 (pp. 212–226), or perhaps it's on one of the 5 pages mentioning the label in The Rough Guide to World Music: Africa & Middle East? Do you think any of these perhaps indicate notability? Would you like to correct your statement that this was a 1-line stub before User:Doublemoon?[31] Would you like to correct your statement that there are "No independent sources"? Do you withdraw the statement that you "can find no significant online coverage that isn't a mirror of the English WP article"? Are all the acts still non-notable in your view? Shall we look next at the news sources, or stay with books? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no axe to grind against Doublemoon. As you have probably seen, I've developed the article about one of their acts, Baba Zula which probably tips them in favour of 'notability'. I come from the point of view that commercial companies need to demonstrate notability beyond brief mentions in relation to their products.

As for your points, you are nit-picking about when and whether Doublemoon was a one-line stub - an anonymous IP (registered in Instanbul) expanded the sentence and added a list a few days before user 'Doublemoon' got stuck in. Re: the book coverage - Music and Solidarity is probably the best coverage but it is one half-para comprising a quote from Doublemoon's website and (after a general para about Istanbul's music scene) a list of some of the artists on Doublemoon's label. Global Beat Fusion has a good two-sentence summary of Doublemoon, as a conclusion to several para's about artist 'Dede'. As for the alleged 5 mentions of Doublemoon in TRGtWM, judging by the Google books search, they are literally only mentions of the name. Ultimately it will be up to a non-involved WP editor to make a judgement about all of this. I've said all I'm going to say. All the best! Sionk (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of two sources is barely literate. The "alleged" 5 mentions in another are, you find, actual. We still don't know which source had "half a paragraph". You refuse to step back from statements about sources and artists which are demonstrably false and you are now refusing to even look at news sources. Since you've said all you're going to say, we must be free to disregard your views, which will not change on any evidence. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If some notability is to be demonstrated, it is most likely by finding references for the claims in the "Doublemoon has received a number of accolades..." paragraph. I added one BBC ref and flagged the claim which would be particularly strong if referenced. AllyD (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Here's the first news result, in Milliyet.[32] Google Translate[33] It's one of many. Here's the second google scholar result.[34] Read the abstract. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travelmatch[edit]

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

Nothing novel here. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Another travel price comparison website. Only reference that is even a borderline reliable source is an announcement that the business had opened and gotten funding. This kind of coverage does not establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree it lacks significant independent coverage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. By definition, as this has been on AFD for just short of a month. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coast to Coast (McDonald's Jazz Band LP)[edit]

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

Liner notes and Youtube videos aren't enough to establish notability based on the requirements of WP:NALBUMS Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would normally agree with this question of notability if it was a standard, commercially released LP and had ample oportunity for peer review. I have now added review/documentation information, as much as is out there with a google book search.

1. The liner notes are done by Leonard Feather who was notoriously picky about doing liner notes and how he did them. Feather himself dates back to the days of being a big advocate of Charlie Parker and jazz musicians of the Be-bop and post bebop era.

2. There is a unique set of young musicians that came through this 'jazz program' sponsored by McDonald's corporation; it was one of kind that will never come again. This LP was a unique set of up and coming 'jazz greats' who had been able to achieve a very good first start on this band. The playing on the LP surpasses a great deal of professional level groups; it honestly does not take a music critic to even hear that.

3. Curnow had to place the group in a specific set of concerts and oportunities to perform (or record) and this was as per McDonalds, the McDonalds Marching Band, and the school schedules of the high school kids involved. This is a musical equivalant of being a McDonalds All American Basketball player or footbell player and then eventually going onto the the Los Angeles Lakers or the Green Bay Packers. Greg Gisbert alone (off this LP) is one of the most sought after jazz trumpeters living in New York; Harry Allen sits at this level too. The recording documents some unique music from a once in a lifetime set of kids. Jcooper1 (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – per: Cadence Magazine, Review by Bob Rusch. Jan 1, 1985 Volume 11, page 87. Perhaps merge to a new article titled, McDonald's All-American High School Jazz Band, for which significant coverage in reliable sources is available, per this search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is done on the group itself then why would this not be a derivative or subpage of a page on the McDonald's jazz group? I am not sure why this would need to be merged rather than kept and then used as a sub-page. Yes, by the logic used there would be need to be an article on the group itself that this might 'flow' from. Jcooper1 (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through different word combinations and other search engines I found:

JAZZ REVIEW: ALL-AMERICANS PUT IT TOGETHER, The Los Angeles Times, Apr 17, 1984. Part VI, Page 1
ASBDA Journal, Volume 57, Ammark Pub. Co., 1987. page 30

Jcooper1 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge The article on the record seems okay to keep, based on published reviews showing notability. It would also make sense to merge to an article on the band itself, which is actually the more interesting and important topic. Borock (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or perhaps merge to a new article on the band as suggested by User:Northamerica1000. One article isn't sufficient to establish WP:N ("Multiple sources are generally expected," WP:GNG). The album isn't notable in its own right, so it can't be kept as a "derivative or subpage" of a new article on the band ("An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence," WP:NALBUMS). Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting for the final time just to ensure that there's no mistake in judging the consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siblu Europe[edit]

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

Not notable despite some press coverage of events and openings etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This business sells holidays to 14 holiday parcs in France and also sells holidays to 10 independently owned holiday parcs in France, Spain and Italy. References are to announcements that various facilities have opened or closed. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. There is a consensus, that a separate article for this actor (at least currently) isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ireton[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, per WP:BLP1E, as her notability and the GNews about her are in relation to this tv-show.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is merge-worthy? The Wiki article claims "Most taken from Amanda Ireton's official web site". Hekerui (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus again... Arguaments are all outweighing each other, nobody can agree. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (state) 21:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XTRIPx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion. In my opinion it fully qualifies for speedy deletion, as it makes no claim of significance. However, I see that there was previously an AfD discussion on this article, in June/July 2010, so I thought it better to relist it here, rather than speedily delete it. The article is completely unsourced, despite being tagged for sources for a year and nine months. The article has a few peacock-worded attempts to make the band sound notable, such as "steadily gaining prominence and popularity", but nothing objective to suggest significance. This is an insignificant band, which does things like releasing a recording limited to 100 copies. The only reason I have not speedily deleted it is that I think doing so is dubious after an AfD has failed to result in deletion. (Note: The previous AfD was closed as "no consensus", but two people argued for deletion, and nobody suggested keeping the article. I can only assume that the closing admin thinks there is some sort of quorum for a deletion discussion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing or any indication of how this band satisfies the notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BAND states that a band is notable if it meets one of the listed criteria, one of which is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Apparently xTRIPx has had two singles on the main Oricon chart (the primary chart for Japan), but both rather low ranked: 130 and 189 (see here). The criteria doesn't specify anything about what rank--only that it chart. (According to the Japanese Wikipedia, the Oricon singles chart was expanded to 200 in 2002.) As for other charts, while I can't seem to go back that far on the Oricon site, according to this, they had a single that charted no. 7 on the Oricon Indies Chart. Is this sufficient to prove notability, or is there something else? Michitaro (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having just participated in another AfD on a Japanese band, where the Oricon charting was sufficient to prove notability, I vote to keep the article because the band seems to fit how the notability criteria have been written. I have added references to the article as proof that the band charted and tried to wikify it a bit. Michitaro (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sources that seemed to be both reliable and that were just more than routine coverage. The fact that they charted 130 and 189 in Japan doesn't impress me much - it strikes me that WP:BAND was written with a number below 100 in mind, like the various Top 40s in existence. Time to revise the guideline perhaps? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be time to change the criteria, but we must proceed on the basis of what is currently spelled out, and this band clearly satisfies the criteria. And even if you insist on a top 40 placing, they clear that, because they placed #7 on the indie charts (WP:BAND specifies "national charts" and the Oricon Indie Chart is a national chart; there is also no restriction on genre charts, which are cited all the time). You would have to significantly re-write the criteria for WP:BAND for your argument to hold. Michitaro (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Michitaro - I don't dispute your points. If we were going by the precise wording of WP:BAND, then I agree the article should be kept. My argument to ignore WP:BAND in this case is based on two things: first, it is a guideline, not an absolute rule, and it says at the top of the page that it should be treated with common sense. Second, guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive - it is precisely because of situations like this that they get updated. Of course, it's by no means certain that other editors agree with my assessment here, so I think we should wait for more comments to come in before we think about actually updating the guideline. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we have to use common sense, and often work on a case-by-case basis, but at the same time written guidelines are there to prevent arbitrary or subjective decisions. While a charting below 100 does seem low (which is why I made the first query above), on what basis are we to say that a #7 charting on one of Oricon's main charts, the Indies Chart, should be ignored? If you can offer a good reason for ignoring that chart or that result, then I could agree with you. But until then, I want to avoid steering too much away from the guidelines. Michitaro (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point, and I'm not sure myself what the answer should be. My instinct tells me that we should only consider the national chart for all genres, as otherwise it would open the door for many bands who would not come close to getting the impartial coverage in reliable sources necessary to write a balanced article. However, even I am reluctant to make an AfD recommendation based purely on instinct. I think in this case a good way to proceed here would be to look at how this problem as been addressed in past deletion discussions, but I am not sure where the best place would be to start looking. Are you aware of any past discussions that have covered this issue? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, band AfDs are rather new to me (which is another reason I posed the above question). Perhaps there is some set of esoteric guidelines based on past precedent that those who haunt the band AfD pages use to judge these things (but given that this has been posted there for about three weeks without anyone mentioning any such precedents, I suspect it's up to us). Of course, one reason to have written guidelines is to avoid having to depend on the old and experienced to provide the esoteric rules, and thus to enable the relatively new to participate without harming continuity. I did participate in one AfD in which a seemingly more experienced user noted that simple charting has in the past been sufficient to prove notability. It was in part based on that statement that I voted to keep this. Michitaro (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Tetris variants. Content can be merged from history as desired. Consensus is that this is not independently notable. Sandstein 08:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris Online Japan[edit]

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

Non-notable video game - does not satisfy the general notability guideline. SmartSE (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources are, essentially, from the site itself or its host. There is no news coverage to speak of, and no evidence that this is an official version of Tetris. Honestly, my first impulse was to merge it somewhere, but there's nowhere to merge it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have you seen sources I have listed on talk page Talk:Tetris_Online_Japan? It includes news coverage. Dodd (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tetris variants, where it is already mentioned. I've been having a look through Japanese-language sources, both the ones listed on the talk page and the ones I could find through Google News, and I haven't found anything that can convince me that this game is notable. I did find quite a few mentions of the game, but they all seemed to be routine coverage - press releases, announcements of the service starting/shutting down, calls for beta testers, etc. I didn't find any reviews or previews of the game's features in independent, reliable sources. On the talk page someone points to the Japanese article existing, but there are two problems with this: one, the article is about the company, not the game; and two, it only contains one source, which isn't related to the game itself. If any reviews in reliable sources can be found, then I could be persuaded to change my recommendation, but for now I think a redirect would be appropriate, as an aid to navigation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it did seem from the sources that this game was an official Tetris game, licensed from The Tetris Company, but I don't think we should let that affect our decision here too much. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had problem to find reviews too, but here is one: http://www.4gamer.net/games/039/G003997/20070618195824/ Dodd (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StealTheDeal[edit]

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

Appears non-notable. Two sources cited in article, both of them press releases from the company itself. The first hundred links turned up by a Google search for "stealthedeal" yielded no evidence that the company has been covered by reputable media. Ammodramus (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this passes our inclusion standards. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morrison (Phi Delta Theta)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only possible claim of notability related to being 1 of 6 original members of a fraternity. I'm sure there are some felicitous fraternity sources extolling his virtues, but those do not satisfy WP:N's "requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" GrapedApe (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 202.124.72.230 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am English and not familiar with American fraternities, but Phi Delta Theta would appear to be a notable organisation. It thus follows that its founder should also be notable. Some one thought highly enough of him to award him a DD, and if this was an honorary one (on which the article is not clear), they belived he was notable. The problem with the article is that it is little more than a stub and tells us nothing of what he did in the last 50 years of his life. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last 50 years of his life is now covered, with substantial souccing. -- 202.124.73.22 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Notability is not inherited (Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED). Just because he founded a notable fraternity does not itself make him notable. There are not other legitimate claims to notability in this article, nor does it pass WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply here, since the founding of Phi Delta Theta satisfies WP:N. -- 202.124.75.49 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your argument is that Robert Morrison is notable through Phi Delta Theta. How is that not classic WP:NOTINHERITED?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. It would be WP:NOTINHERITED if we argued that someone was notable simply by being a member of Phi Delta Theta. In this case, Robert Morrison did several things that satisfy WP:N, including being the primary founder of Phi Delta Theta. Given the NYT and other obits and the other biographical material, this seems as clear a "keep" as I've ever seen. -- 202.124.75.213 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are a plethora of books about the founding of Phi Delta Theta and Robert Morrison's role, some of which are cited in the fraternity article. There are also Morrison's other activities. -- 202.124.75.49 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There exist plenty of sources that go into detail about him. It would be absurd to interpret "independent of the subject" as meaning "independent of anyone ever connected to the organization founded by the subject", but even if one does, the sources include what appears to be a NY Times obituary (although the Times isn't actually showing me its contents). WP:BIO1E is more of an issue, but we have enough sourced detail of important events in his life outside of the fraternity (e.g. as editor of a newspaper, head of two schools, and what looks like an honorary doctorate) that I don't think it's a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both NYT articles have a click-through to a pdf of the article contents. Or at least they do if you access the site from Australia. -- 202.124.72.213 (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Randall Travel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing notable here. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per these sources, topic is meeting WP:GNG:

The Age article. This article constitutes significant coverage.
Daily Mail article. An eight-paragraph article (be sure to scroll down and read the passages in-between the article links in the article), entirely about Martin Randall Travel.

This article may also be functional:

Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland article. (subscription required). Appears to be about Martin Randall Travel, but I don't have access to the entire article.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Randall Travel (2nd nomination). The substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes that Martin Randall Travel passes Wikipedia:Notability. The nomination fails to explain why the previous discussion's result was invalid. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous discussion was in 2008. The coverage is an interview with the founder and one short news item. Overall, this is not significant coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full text of my comment from 2008:
*Keep Appears to be a somewhat notable company. Using a Google News Archive search, I've found several articles that are about this company, Times Online, The Age, Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland, Telegraph, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Mail on Sunday. This company has also received significant coverage in a history book, titled A History of Western Architecture. Even if the AITO Travel Company of the Year Award is non-notable, Martin Randall Travel has received some coverage for this award. The significant coverage of this travel company indicates that it is notable and passes WP:COMPANY. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The Times Online link is now under a paywall and the Google Books link is no longer working, but at the time, I found significant coverage about Martin Randall Travel in the book "A History of Western Architecture". Cunard (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Has been rewritten; can be renominated if still deemed problematic. Sandstein 08:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namadhari Nagartha[edit]

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

Orphaned uncategorized dead-end page with no verifiable references. The PDF at the National Commission for Backward Classes link is irrelevant; as the article itself says, the group is not counted as a Backward class. It's unclear if this is a duplicate, subset, or superset of Namdhari (or entirely unrelated). Articles which list similar groups don't mention this one (e.g., Vaishya, List of Indian castes, List of Scheduled Tribes in India, Forward caste, and so on).

Additionally, much of this article appears to be a copy-paste from page 12 of this PDF. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't delete this Article since Namadhari Nagartha is one of the most prestagious community spread across Karnataka , Andra and Tamil nadu. This article is created to get the awareness of this caste/community in the public. All article content is relevent and yes its copied from National Commission for Backward Classes pdf since to show the proof that this community atleast exist and nominated for include in backward classes commity this advise / bill has been rejected by governtment since they believe that this caste namadhari Nagartha is upper caste as Nagartha also follows same ceremonicals as Brahmins or Lingayaths.

Thre are many external Forums available about this caste Namadhari Nagartha in Facebook, In Orkut etc as a proof that this caste exists.

- Regards, Suresh NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnj (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Sureshnj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Note to closing admin: Sureshnj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an article on Nagartha caste with information about Namadhari and Siwachar Nagarthas. A southern Indian caste is unlikely to be related to the Sikhs. There is plenty of information about the Nagarta, and an article on en.wikipedia is appropriate. Also, the lack of an entry about a South Indian topic in an en.wikipedia article is surely not a criteria for deletion. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This caste is notable. Apparently my English and topic knowledge is not good enough to edit the article, though. Just trying to write this article and link to others on en.Wikipedia about South Asian castes shows many articles on the South Asian caste systems are useless, badly written, and wrong. But I don't like being insulted. Yes, I know my knowledge of the topic is not good; but compared to what exists on en.wikipedia, it's spectacular. I saw many out right factual errors while trying to link the first paragraph of this article; I could do nothing but correct facts in caste articles on en.wikipedia and it would be more than a full time job and still go nowhere. There is just too much anti-South Asian bias on en.Wikipedia.

And my edit of this article was going well. If someone else can do it better and faster, they should have just done it instead of criticizing my work.Pseudofusulina (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh… No one has said anything denigrating your English or topic knowledge. Or at least I haven't—which I've tried to explain on both the article's talk page and your talk page—but I'll apologize again for the misunderstanding and for any offense you felt. And as I said on those pages, I do think you're doing a great job, and I hope you keep up the good work! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTunez.com[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Subject gets only 3 gnews hits, out of which at least two are press releases. Article sourced to subject's site, founder's personal site, an award list which is just there to support that founder won an award for something unrelated to subject, and now the one non-press release gnews hit, a six-sentence piece on a german music business site. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can consider Musikmarkt a reliable source. There was also this interview between a musikmarkt-author and the YouTunez.com founder. You are right that sources for the article are little, but they are not nonexistent. In Digital audio distributors there are comparable articles, e.g. Zimbalam, Zebralution or Feiyr. I think these companies are note-worthy. There aren't a lot of them, especially not German. As long as the articles aren't advertisement, but well-sourced and comprehensive, it shouldn't be a problem. Please keep. DerPaul (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That interview is on a personal website, so it wouldn't seem to confer much in terms of notability. As for this being somehow particularly worthy of note because it's German, I should note that it's acting on the international stage, and treating English as its primary language (the name is English, and even if you go to the German version of the website, the logo remains in English.) I'm not saying that Musikmarkt is an unreliable source, merely that a single six-sentence piece conveys limited amounts of notability at best. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One interview on a personal web site is not enough to make a web site notable per WP:WEB. Rucht's award doesn't seem relevant to this website per WP:COATRACK. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, the relevance of that award is unclear. What I was implying is that Rucht is an artist/musician by himself, and that does have a connection with his company. It's hard wording that correctly... DerPaul (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qi (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All the sources cited in the article are primary. Google searches failed to turn up anything useful. Previous AfD outcome in 2007 was keep, but only because it was a brand-new article, not because there was evidence of notability. Msnicki (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion has been noticed by the Qi community [35] [36] —Ruud 20:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. I struggled on this, as there are lots of primary and unreliable sources, but I think I've found one - a paperback book on the language has been commercially published with an ISBN number as seen here. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book, Mark Tarver, is also the author of Qi, making that a WP:PRIMARY source and not helpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but in order to be commercially published, the book would have had to have gone through whatever editorial and peer review process Upfront Publishing have. I don't think it would be a completely primary source unless they directly reprinted whatever he threw at them verbatim without looking at any of it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A respected publisher with a reputation for fact-checking could make a source WP:RELIABLE, i.e., likely accurate in what it reports. But this particular publisher, Upfront Publishing, now called FastPrint is a vanity press; they print anything. And even if it was reliable, it would still be WP:PRIMARY and unusable for establishing notability. From WP:INDEPENDENT, "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Also, from WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Msnicki (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Oh yes, it's a vanity press after all. Never mind. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, let them make a revision The Qi Programming language is an important conceptual development. It brings types and logic progamming to functional programming. It might not be the most efficient logic programming language implementation, but it might give a good future prespective a possible integration of both worlds. It is in competition with other approaches such as Closure/Kanren and you name it. Janburse (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Hi Andy,

I guess Qi and Shen are supposed to be two different products although not independent. They share some properties:

http://www.shenlanguage.org/Documentation/shendoc.htm#Shen%20and%20Qi:%20differences

So they can be both notable independently, Qi is even supposed to have its own license. But on the other hand we find the verb superceded here:

http://www.lambdassociates.org/wiki.htm

Which indecates that Qi and Shen are not branches, but Shen is a subsequent release of Qi. Janburse (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything. Is the article's subject notable enough to appear in multiple, reliable sources? As you'll see from the above discussion, I had a good hard, look for some, and after some argument concluded that there isn't really anything out there now that passes muster. One possible outcome is to userfy the page, then as and when reliable sources do appear, the article can be put back in the main space. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, you did search for e.g. Qi Lisp instead of just Qi (a Chinese term of art of significant importance, which is of course no accident)? Hga (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qi+Lisp+Shen is the more productive.

When this is deleted, and before the Shen (programming language) article is inevitably deleted too, then much of the content here could usefully be merged to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hang on, let's not all get down in the dumps about this just yet! I can't honestly remember the search terms I used, but I think I did "qi language" "qi programming" "qi lisp" "qi debugging" plus a few other variants. Plus of course there's that well known UK TV Quiz show to get out of the way! It is frustrating that there is a lot of stuff on it, but it's all a bit too close to home to treat as a secondary source. I've been the position where I've had stuff deleted or at least put up for AfD because I have private sources that i can't publicly prove enough to cross WP:RS, and yeah it's a pain in the neck. However, at least it's a pain in the neck consistently across everything, I guess. One thing's for sure - I would always qualify a failure to satisfy WP:N with it being not notable now or not notable yet, which is to say it might be notable in the future. Hence the recommendation to userfy so it doesn't get flushed down the bin just because it's not quite ready for prime time.

You could try getting Paul Graham to blog about it. ;-) --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richie333 makes a really good point. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL; you have to actually have the sources, not just good prospects for getting them someday. If the topic really should be notable and the only thing standing in the way is a couple good independent sources, then do the obvious: Start a little guerrilla effort to get some journalists interested in writing about it, the same way most entrepreneurs would tackle the problem. Pick up the phone or send them email and start pestering them. They have lots of experience dealing with PR flacks and other pests, so if you're just flogging junk, they know how to get rid of you. But they're always looking for stories and interesting products to review, so if you've got one, go for it. If you can convince them it's notable, that goes a long way to convincing us. Msnicki (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Qi is an important programming language that explores the combination of traditional Lisp with pattern matching, rather than verbose arcana with car / cdr. It would be useful to have encylopedic coverage of it.

However this is Wikipedia, and WP:Notability is a simplistic concept that is exercised by subject-unaware editors who think that a lambda is a baby sheep. As non self-published sources do seem unaccountably thin, then this article is doomed. Best thing is to not waste time on it, but do something more likely not to get squelched instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qi was enough to win Mark Tarver a "Promising Inventor" gong from Stony Brook University in the early 2000s. That ought to be sourceable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find anything on this? —Ruud 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As a programming language theorist I'd say this language looks at least interesting and I'd be interested in knowing how the expressivity of its type system compares to that of Coq or Agda.

If I put my Wikipedia hat on, I'd have to say delete. I can find some articles by Tarver on his earlier work on SEQUEL, but, as Tarver seems to have left academia, nothing on Qi or Shen. My advise would be to get something published on Qi, get cited, and then get a Wikipedia article. We have articles on some pretty obscure languages (Epigram, Cayenne), but those did receive notice by various researchers in the PLT community.

If a strong enough link with SEQUEL can be established, perhaps a single article covering SEQUEL, Qi and Shen might pass as notable. —Ruud 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Stony Brook award (surely we can verify that), how about this:

Qi was later used within a postdoctoral project to develop a multiagent transport model illustrating Wardrop's Principle (6, 7).

6. M.Tarver and M. I. Faé Wardrop’s Principle Revisited: a multiagent approach, Congresso de Pesquisa e Ensino em Transportes, ANPET, 2002.

7. M.Tarver and M. I. Faé Applications of MultiAgents in Transport, Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 2005.

[ In reply to the concept expressed in the sentence that starts with "If a strong enough link with SEQUEL can be established...." ]

Taver quickly whipped up this which I gather could support that type of article, perhaps with a bit more fleshing out. However, while I can see that as vaguely serving the purposes of Wikipedia, it would seem to be otherwise pretty pointless. Especially since as you note it might at best pass muster, especially to "subject-unaware editors who think that a lambda is a baby sheep". Hga (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need here are some mentions of Qi by authorities who are not Tarver. If he included claims such as "Qi has the most powerful type theory of any language that will ever be invented." and tautologies such as "It is guaranteed to terminate in Qi too, provided that the user does not add non-terminating type rules." [37] in a paper submitted to JFP or ICFP it would surely get rejected. We'd therefore rather not see them on Wikipedia either. Insisting on reliable and independent sources is the way we try to prevent that. —Ruud 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure the postdoc had good things to say about Qi ^_^, but he's not likely a good authority. I expect we'll not fight the delete of this and the Shen article, but "We'll be back" when we have some notability support, which the project hasn't seen as a priority to date. Although I don't know the status of blogs, which of course are where so much of the action in this area has moved. Or how about the example of Lambda the Ultimate, which I gather has some degree of status, curation, etc.? Hga (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To get reliable independent coverage, think about who is it that normally writes about this sort of stuff, doing product reviews and similar articles in publications we'd likely accept as reliable and independent. I'd go pester people like Martin Heller or Larry Seltzer or whoever it is you think would be a better match. Good luck. Msnicki (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous LtU threads didn't seem to garner much (favourable) discussion though: [38] (especially the comment by Adam Chlipala) and [39]. —Ruud 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please, keep the article. It gives a great overview of the language in a nice concise and structured way. As such it adds a great value in itself for people interested in Qi and it's type system. It's easy to get a feel of a language and gives a reader a clue of what to expect if she wants do dive in. Qi does indeed lack unbiased materials but it's often mentioned in discussions about type theory and programming language design (notably on LtU and Reddit-programming and Reddit-compsci). Ruud suggest having a joint article on Qi and Shen but I'm somewhat worried that the resulting article will be too long and confusing. So, I would rather wait till that joint article is up and reaches a comparable quality. Then we can safely remove a dedicated article for Qi. Listochkin (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Listochkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep an article because it's good?! What sort of against-policy heresy is this?! Technical articles are only to be kept if a 20 character string can be pattern-matched against an irrelevant text from Google Books, on a totally different topic. Next you'll be suggesting that articles are here to be read, not just to be kept on the shelf and their perfection of form and compliancy with policy admired from afar. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main source for this language, "Functional Programming in Qi" by Tarver, has only been cited once according to Google scholar, by Tarver himself (the other cite listed by GS appears to be a false positive). I also found a trivial mention in the preface of ECOOP'08. That is enough to convince me that this language has not yet had a chance to make a significant impact in theory or in practice, and that the multiple third-party sources with nontrivial coverage required by WP:GNG do not exist. No prejudice against recreation in some future date when this language becomes significantly more popular. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The other one" is not a false positive. Try one of the other hits from google scholar on that paper. The one you referred to links to the sliders. Other hits links to the paper itself. [40].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.211.90 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — 213.103.211.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ok, but that article still only mentions Qi in a trivial way that does not help towards passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, I followed Ruud's link at the top to peek at what the Qi community thinks of us. Some remarks: As explained at WP:PROBLEM, we do not delete articles because of content problems; if an article's not well-written or incorrect in what it reports, that can be always be fixed by anyone willing to put in the effort. But to have an article on Wikipedia, the topic needs to be WP:NOTABLE: Someone other than the people connected with the topic have to have decided it was sufficiently interesting that they thought about it and wrote something that got published in a reliable publication. This is a more technical, more precise use of the term than most of us would use in ordinary conversion where, if something seems notable, that's close enough. Here, it's not enough that an author thinks his work should be notable, it actually has to be. It's not enough that others should take note, they actually have to do it. If we didn't do this, we'd be overrun with spam. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. But this bar of notability really isn't that high. If a couple reliable independent sources say a topic is notable, we take their word for it. If PCWeek isn't the right place to get some coverage, how about an ACM or IEEE journal? All it takes is a couple people not named Mark Tarver writing a couple short articles and getting them published somewhere. My suggestion would be WP:USERFY the article while you go get something published. Msnicki (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When did a popularity of a particular article (or the popularity of the general knowledge-area that it tried to give light to) become the criteria for deletion? That should not be the case unless the article is completely irrelevant to current circumstances. This is a bad judgement call being made by the proposers. When "Shen" the language, which is supposedly the successor to Qi, gets more traction and even its own article, I would propose at that point to have this article be merged with it. In the meantime, a blurb on the Qi article about Shen should be entered in.. Lapax —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have a reason you feel we should keep it? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I read your remarks several times and I couldn't find where you stated one. I understand that you don't think we should decide based on popularity, but no one's suggested we do that anyway. We decide based on notability WP:N: if reliable independent secondary sources exist, it's notable and we keep it, otherwise we don't. So far, no one has been able to find any such sources. Do you know of some? Msnicki (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple , from language and programming conference notes online that refer to Qi and Mark Tarver's talks about the next generation of Lisps.. [ACM: Activities of the 5th European Lisp and Scheme Workshop], [Object-Oriented Technology ECOOP 2008 Workshop Reader] . Not sure if these are sufficient as references.. Lapax —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Only noted for its obscurity. Is this IQ backwards? These source-code based obscure language pages just make Wikipedia look bad. History2007 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ignorant and uninformed comment. If you don't know about the topic you are talking about, and don't even bother googling the topic, don't comment. Qi/Shen has an active community, has been used for real software, has several academic references, quite a few blog posts, has a language committee, is financed by the users, and often being discussed in online fora. This deletion request is actually quite ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.210.20 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Using Ruud's evaluations above to instead vote a keep: the article should be kept in order for the Qi community get a chance to evolve the section Architecture which use to be foundational for whether a research or otherwise innovative software is WP:NOTABLE if its usage community is (still) small. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Doesn't affect the discussion here but FYI following a request, the content has been transwiki'd to Wikibooks. QU ^TalkQu 12:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. I'm the editor that copied the article's content to Wikibooks. I'm sure this is a hackish work as I'm not experienced with that project; I'm stepping here to remind others that afd admits several options other than Keep or Delete. The current article doesn't have sources establishing notability, but that doesn't mean that it should be lost; it can be merged or copied to an apropriate Wikimedia site. Diego (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if Wikibooks is the best place to collect articles on borderline-notable programming languages. Starting a dedicated Wiki(a) (á la Esolang) might be a better idea. There authors don't have to worry about constraints like notability, neutrality, accuracy and quality. —Ruud 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, however, notability (which I think is the issue driving this specific AfD) is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikibooks. We have plenty of obscure material! QU ^TalkQu 09:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estestvenny otbor[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N guidelines AKS (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a Russian TV game show. Sources may not be in English or in the Latin alphabet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source is youtube. just because the TV show exists does not make it notable. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Youtube does not confer notability. Cloudz 679 21:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (and Redirect) to Marriage loan, which article was created as a result of this discussion. Herostratus (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abkindern[edit]

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

WP:Dicdef, move to wiktionary Gsingh (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Marriage loan and expand. There is a small article to be written on the Nazi marriage loans; we have three sentences and a ref in Themes in Nazi propaganda#Motherhood and I have another ref to hand, plus I presume the source listed in this article has info on it. Has the concept of a marriage loan existed in any other cultures? If not, this seems like a good candidate for a bold move. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now created Marriage loan and incorporated the information and reference from this article. I propose this article be redirected to the new one to preserve its history; I have also linked to this discussion in my first initial summary in case it is instead deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to marriage loan as proposed; good work! Sandstein 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Rail Journeys[edit]

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

Advertising. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company is notable with adequate citations in national newspapers. The article needs a serious rewrite for tone and embedded links but that's our job, not a cause for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources:

Barrett, Frank (June 8, 2009)."Steam rail holidays: How breathing in the nostalgic whiff of coal lifted my Harz." Daily Mail.
McClarence, Stephen(October 12, 2008). "On the Slow Train to Highland Glories." Daily Express.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant company.Nucleophilic (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article was speedied yesterday as an A10 duplicate of an existing article. And in looking at the deleted article, I agree. I am now closing this AFD as moot. When a name for the Yash Chopra untitled project can be confirmed, THAT article can be moved to the new title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jai (2012 film)[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion due to the following facts:-

The article talks about a film in production, using only a speculated but confirmed wrong title. Jai is not the film name.

The film in question refers to a particular Bollywood film, an article about which already exists as Yash Chopra's Untitled Project. The text of Jai is directly lifted in part from the latter article.

Technically, this falls under A10 criteria of "speedy deletion". I request this page to be deleted with immediate effect, as it constitutes multiplication of the same topic.

AnkitBhatt^WDF 10:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cabair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company has no reliable sources to corroborate notability - which hasn't been established too well, either. Since it's 1st nomination - how exactly has this article improved? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable flying club which actually went bust and a recent revival of the name that doesnt appear to be notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless notability, sources etc. etc. can be established.Petebutt (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant advertising. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 - The article as it stands is a verbatim copyvio from [41] and [42] and the copyvio goes back to everything but the first revision that includes nothing more than the title, so deleting as copyvio. —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Citation Index (ICI)[edit]

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

A quick search regarding http://www.indiancitationindex.com/ shows an Alexa rank of over 4M and no independent GNews hits. This suggests that the subject does not meet the notability criteria at WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Significant promotional tone as well. PROD was contested by the author. VQuakr (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article on important subject. Needs better sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

If you have reason to believe that sources meeting the GNG exist, can you provide them so they can be incorporated into the article? VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am unable to do this. I hope somebody else will. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Cosell[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BIO is an entire page of notability guidelines for people. What aspect of this guideline page qualifies this nomination? Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BIO notability standards. Article subject in question is the subject of multiple published secondary sources included in reference list (including two New York Times articles). In addition, the article subject meets notability standards for creative professionals 1:The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, and 4:The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Elj1201 (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons stated by Elj1201 are compelling, can not see how article fails WP:BIO Tjc (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources already included in article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:BIO based on the sources in the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets BIO, GNG, and any other notability standard that would apply. "Fails Bio" is not a reason without further details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Holden (writer)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This entry above is part of the nomination, and is not an !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of her work has Wikipedia articles, so I think she is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. She has her own article in the current edition of Who's Who, which requires entrants to meet a higher standard of notability than Wikipedia does. Jim Michael (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's easily enough here already. I've added some more sources, quotations and a bibliography. Plenty more out there for opera buffs to collect - she's an expert librettist and editor, is interviewed on the radio, praised in the New York Times, very well known in the field. RS in all directions. Prizewinning too. 'Nuff said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chiswick Chap's comments and additions clearly demonstrate notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Her contributions to the Viking and Penguin opera guides and her other works are widely cited in Wikipedia articles. She's highly notable.-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Michael Bednarek and above. I like "rescued by Amanda Holden's clever English version". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (needless to say). In addition to her well-known translations of opera libretti, she is also the original librettist of Bliss, The Silver Tassie and Nigel Osborne's opera The Piano Tuner. A quick glance here and here (before nominating) would have helped. But the silver lining is that it has resulted in a much improved article and better sourcing, even if that is not what AfDs are for. Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per (almost) everyone above, though I'm devastated that her performance as Jane in Salad Days at Worcester College, Oxford in 1968 doesn't get a mention . --GuillaumeTell 10:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partnerpedia[edit]

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

Borderline G11, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP or WP:WEB, sources listed are either press releases, one passing mention, or no mentions at all of the company in the source Delete Secret ^account 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another software company that provides large and midsized enterprises with app marketplaces, mobile app management (MAM) solutions and enterprise app stores advertising on Wikipedia. The current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising, being written entirely in PR solution-speak rather than neutral English. The only reliable source in the article, the Forbes reference, does not mention this business; the rest are press releases and non-notable awards. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business#Request for review of Partnerpedia Pine^talk 09:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hybrid Theory. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing Me Away[edit]

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

Never released as a single, not noteworthy. Perhaps redirect to Linkin Park or Hybrid Theory. Calabe 1992 04:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hybrid Theory, the parent album, as I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this song; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:SONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina University Student Transit Authority[edit]

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

Non-notable bus system for East Carolina University. Only 27 routes--isn't large enough to be notable without the evidence of sources, per WP:GNG. Supposedly "one of the largest transit systems in North Carolina" but that dubious claim is unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a directory of bus routes. GrapedApe (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't rule out the possibility that this bus system might be notable, but this article has no sources other than the bus system's own web page, and it consists primarily of a long list of bus routes for which people would be better served to refer to the bus system's home page. Furthermore, the comment that one of the buses circulates "through each of our bus hubs" suggests, through its use of the first person, suggests excessive dependence on the system's own publications. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The gramatical mistakes at least let us know that it's probably not a copy and paste job from some official source.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until sufficient 3rd party sources can be found to demonstrate notability here, my !vote is delete. I'm not finding anything myself outside of the primary sources in the article. RadioFan (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little serious assertion of wider notability. Students would be better served looking at their university's website (which is more likely to be kept up to date as the routes change anyway). Kansan (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD A7). Jeremy (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Nauru[edit]

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

Bringing to AfD discussion after article creator declined PROD. The subject is not notable and falls under something that was made up one day. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:MADEUP. Ammodramus (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Quan[edit]

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

I looked at google (first couple of pages), Googles News, Books and Scholar and found zip RS that discusses "Shao Quan" as a martial art. In fact, News, books and scholar don't mention it in the context of a martial art at all. The only reason I haven't gone for a hoax CSD is that it is possible that Chinese sources may exist and listing for a week might give them time to emerge. Otherwise, appears to be non-notable at best. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find anything that supports notability for this unsourced article. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found nothing to show this style is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upper crust (idiom)[edit]

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

Dicdef Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Single source dicdef. Direct link to Wiktionary entry 'upper crust' already available at Upper crust, a valid & easy to find disambiguation page for anyone looking for the term here. Dru of Id (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Train Wreck[edit]

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

We have one local source and zip in google news, scholar or books and the first couple of main pages show nothing reliable. Looks like this simply isn't noteworthy enough for an article. Suggest delete and redirect to Helena, Montana or merge if there is salvageable material. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Good save there. Can someone close this now please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No one died, and there were no serious injuries. A bunch of railroad equipment got smashed, some chemicals blew up, and oh, it was a really cold morning. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This did not appear to have a lasting significance to demonstrate notability. No one was killed/injured and plenty of train wrecks have happened in the past; that doesn't mean they need their own articles. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It caused a VERY significant amount of property damage, completely freaked out local residents (explosion woke up the whole town), and was the worst train accident in Helena history, possibly one of the worse in Montana. I have placed notice at WikiProject Montana for participants to comment and ask the discussion stay within the notability criteria-- I do admit the article is very stubby and needs expansion. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you aware that the reasons you have provided for keeping this article are invalid? Causing significant property damage, scaring residents and being the worst train accident in Montana do not account for notability, unless it is shown in significant coverage from reliable sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been much worse and much more notable train wrecks in Montana. On June 17, 1938, a passenger train plunged into Custer Creek off of a trestle that had been damaged by a flash flood, and according to an article in Life magazine, 44 people were killed and three were missing. It was described as the worst American train wreck since 1887. Then, there was the head-on collision between two trains at Young's Point on September 25, 1908 that occurred during a blizzard and killed 21 people. A derailment near Missoula on June 10, 1962 injured 282 people, 63 of whom were hospitalized. Those wrecks are described in Montana disasters: fires, floods, and other catastrophes. I do not think that the Helena incident rises to the benchmark of notability for train wrecks, which I would describe in general as significant loss of life or widespread injuries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find very little coverage or indications of lasting impact.RafikiSykes (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, so worst train wreck in Montana for 50 years, then. (Still worst wreck in Helena, ever) And a Google search on "1989 Helena train" provides this, among which the accident is rated as one of the Top Ten Montana Weather Events of the 20th Century. Note that -32 F below is significant cold, even in Montana. If anything, the notability is that the train travelled backwards from the top of MacDonald Pass, a good 12-15 miles (not sure how many rail miles compares to road miles) and crashes almost in the center of town, not more than a few hundred yards from a college campus. The train carried hazardous chemicals, knocked out power to the whole town, caused a square mile of the community to be evacuated, damaged buildings, and caused expensive repairs. Just because no one died should not detract from its significance; the miracle that no one did is significant in itself! Montanabw^(talk) 03:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But do reliable sources call it a "miracle" with a straight face? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luck, at least! How about Montana disasters: fires, floods, and other catastrophes By Molly Searl pp 127-128. Rather than arguing it here, I'll just pop some material into the article itself Montanabw^(talk) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC) What also strikes me here is the poor faith in blindly doing a search on the word "wreck" -- "accident" "crash" or "explosion" would also be suitable. My own search was just "1989 Helena Train" and I found numerous sources, some of which I'm adding. If consensus goes against me, at least merge what's there into the Helena article, I expanded it quite a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I now think that the article scrapes by, based on the outstanding work done by Montanabw. I still think that the other train wrecks I mentioned above are even more worthy of articles, but I've been convinced. The article needs a lead paragraph summarizing the incident. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will do more later, I'm tired and I have a headcold... :P Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep per improvements made. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen and Go Home. MTBW has done a great job of article rescue here and it just meets notability. Yea, there are more noteworthy MT train wrecks, but that doens't mean this one per force isn't noteworthy. On that point, I think it's just notable for wiki.PumpkinSky talk 12:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just added a statement and ref in which this wreck was part of a US Dept of Energy study.PumpkinSky talk 14:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks all, and I much appreciate the good faith, if I got snarky at anyone, sorry 'bout that, you folks are champs! (Who DOES have the authority to close these, anyway?) Montanabw^(talk) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has improved so the initial concerns that led here no longer apply to the article. Only thing to add is that it might be worth renaming to something more in line with how people refer to it?RafikiSykes (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to a proper rename, open to ideas on the article's talk page. Maybe "Helena train crash of 1989?" Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hamilton-Byrne[edit]

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

BLP1E applies - since we already have the article at The_Family_(Australian_New_Age_group) we have no need for this and it should be deleted and then redirected there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unsure of notability but am sure that the article is very poorly written. However, I don't see BLP1E as a good argument for deletion. The article describes far more than "one" potentially notable event. If kept, the article needs a major overhaul. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not just a duplication of The Family article. It has plenty of extra material on Sarah H-B which isn't in the Family article, and that material is relevant to Wiki because Sarah H-B is notable enough. She was the public face of the issue at the time, she wrote the book on the subject, has numerous mentions in the media etc etc. I don't think the article is poorly written, but I am happy to spruce it up if anyone wants to discuss the problems with me. Sardaka (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – She has actively sought media attention since she left The Family, so she qualifies as a relatively high-profile individual; therefore BLP1E does not apply. Graham87 15:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E does not apply because the subject is not notable for only the one event. She is a published writer and speaker who has taken part in debate on cults. She has also started her own charity (mentioned in the article) and still appears frequently in the media. Sardaka (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Graham87 that she has has enough coverage because of seeking it out and getting media coverage. --LauraHale (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with Graham87and sardaka Satu Suro 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shamata Anchan[edit]

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

BLP1E applies. Notability for only one event. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Won a non-notable regional beauty pageant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per BLP1E Veryhuman (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RX II[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, appears to fail the notability guidelines. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a Norwegian yacht that sails around the Arctic. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The expedition was covered at least once by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and Aftenposten (video and article entirely about it), in addition to a local TV channel in Norway, was heavily covered by one Norwegian sailing magazine (there's a sub-site including a complete blog of the expedition in Norwegian and a blog in English that stops at the end of the first season) and the subject of at least one article in another Norwegian sailing mag and an English-language sailing mag. I've rewritten the article and added references. There is likely some additional info about the RX II herself - one article calls her "famous" - which I haven't yet found (things like Mazda cars cause search interference and the Norwegian search engine Kvasir seems to have tweaked its time period definition controls to make things harder for technical fumblers like me) - but there was definitely enough coverage of the expedition in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability criterion and I can't think of a better title for the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Kudos to Yngvadottir for providing the references. Haus^Talk 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is now well-referenced with verifiable notability, a far cry from how it was when it was nominated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - the issue raised in the nominantion has been addressed. References provided show that it meets WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtranslate[edit]

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

This website doesn't look like it passes WP:WEB. None of the sources in the article look like they pass our guidelines on identifying reliable sources, and I can't find any sources on Google News or Google Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially advertising for a small company, complete with the price they charge per paid. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are lacking sufficient independence and demonstration that the company is notable. AllyD (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company advertising. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been edited with citations from verifiable sources.Pureenergy05 (talk) 3:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Pureenergy05, and thanks for adding more sources to the article. While your efforts are appreciated, I'm afraid that the sources you added are not enough to satisfy our notability guidelines, in my opinion. From our notability guideline for corporations, it says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Let me go through each of the sources in turn, and check them against this statement. Globespan and Raven are connected with Foxtranslate, and so fail to be independent. The Sigma Partners and VentureBeatProfiles don't mention Foxtranslate itself, and so Foxtranslate is not their subject. Posterous.com only mentions Foxtranslate briefly, and so definitely does not count as significant coverage. The Better Business Bureau source only says that Foxtranslate meets their accreditation standards, which I would also say does not count as significant coverage. Finally, SEOBrien appears to be a blog, and so likely does not count as reliable (also see Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources). Sources that are usually a good indication of notability are mainstream news articles and books by reputable publishers - if you can find anything that looks like that, then I could be persuaded that the company is notable. If these kind of sources do not exist, though, it may simply be too soon for Foxtranslate to have an article on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense to me. I can't find any other sources that fit the mold. Thanks for the further explanation of notability. Pureenergy05 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pandion (software)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability per WP:GNG I failed to find any indications of notability in the wild. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about an XMPP / Jabber client. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that was pretty obvious from the article itself... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but it wasn't obvious when I was looking at the list of today's AfDs. Now it is. :D - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero notability. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regardless of personal experience, regarding notability, I found the following websites discussing pandion, one way or another:

SourceForge pandion page. I think we can consider this as a reliable source as it includes third-party opinions on the software, but I may be wrong.
Alternative To website.
XMPP clients list.

In addition, Wikipedia refers to it, but, as known, it cannot be considered 'reliable source': Wikipedia article on instant messaging client comparison. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of this can't be used for WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT purposes. (1) is primary source with third-party comments that can't be used for anything per WP:SPS, (2) is also prohibited by WP:SPS and is an indiscriminate directory (though very incomplete) and (3) is also indiscriminate directory. Effectively, these links prove the existence, not notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Close to zero notability. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not found reliable sources to suggest this subject is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes WP:NBOOK (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Swans at Coole (poem)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a book of poetry. Notability is not inherited either. Just because someone is a famous poet does not mean there should automatically be an article about every poem he wrote. This "article" is nothing more than a simple statement that he wrote this poem along with the poem itself. This can just as easily be included in a list of his poems, together with an external link. Stedrick (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- ~~No Notability. Nothing indicates there is something about this particular poem that it needs its own article.~~ Phearson (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - whatever about the quality of the stub so far, if this subject is deleted as 'not notable', then Wikipedia should drop any pretense to being an encyclopedia. See scholarly articles. RashersTierney (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NBOOK #5 would mean this obviously passed the notability guideline even if there wasn't a ton of material on the poem. What kind of silly nomination is this? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons it is hardly necessary to go into any major work by WB Yeats is going to be extensively studied and have a good deal written about it. As pointed out above, that is demonstrably true here. Sooner or later, somebody will create a proper WP article. In the meantime, it remains a stub but we do not delete articles for that reason. --AJHingston (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known and widely analysed work by major poet. v weak article, but that's an editing issue. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Part of me wants to close this, but I'll let the appropriate consensus be hashed out instead of jumping the gun. Put simply, this is a major literary work. WP:NBOOK #5 is relevant, but even if it wasn't, there is undoubtedly a ton of coverage out there. This needs expansion, not deletion. WilliamH (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools#Schools. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oglethorpe Charter School[edit]

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

I found nothing that puts this beyond an average middle school. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is still non-notable, but not as average. "In 2004, the United States Department of Education's Office of Innovation and Improvement, recognized the school as one of eight exemplary charter schools in the United States." Although that does not show Wikipedia notability, it might show that I'm missing something. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Nothing in that guideline allows inherent notability for a school "recognized as" an "exemplary charter school." Edison (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge into the city, possibly a section on charter schools there if one does not already exist. I'm not convinced we should mention all middle charter schools, but this is a long standing one, and , as SL93 mentined, there is some degree of importance. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - blank, and redirect to Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools#Schools where it is already listed. There is no policy or guideline that middle schools are inherently notable, but as redirection is often a preferred solution: Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article (policy), non notable schools that are proven to exist are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, the Notability template: If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted]], and summarised in WP:OUTCOMES, an objective essay that "is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy", they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA), or to the article about the locality, or to a list article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Kudpung's rationale. We don't need an article, but a redirect will be helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue, speedy deleted at MfD, non-admin closure –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jonathan Laser[edit]

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

Personal Page Andrew Kurish (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close- As wrong venue. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion is WP:MFD. Dru of Id (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion already filed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Talk:Jonathan Laser. Dru of Id (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy keep. We've covered this ground. Nominator's account possibly compromised. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The references provided for this article do not satisfy the requirements for notability. Many of these references are by-lines. These are not secondary sources. Further, they are not about the subject, they only contain contributions by the subject, and do not establish notability. Several of them do not meet the reliability test because they are not accessible. No listed source "addresses the subject directly in detail", which is the first requirement for notability in WP:NOTABILITY.

I think it is important to note that while this article has survived several nominations, its subject (and frequent editor) is an administrator here, and as such, should be held to a very high standard. He is free to share this information on his user page, and on Linked-In, but this does not belong in the main wiki. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is about time this matter was settled once and for all and a rigorous determination made as to exactly why (or why not) the subject fulfills Wikipedia's BLP notability standards. In the last AfD the debate was closed after only eight hours, an improper closure as it did not allow for the full 24 hour work/sleep cycle of Wikipedians throughout the world. I ask that this AfD be kept open for the regulation seven days to allow the full consideration that will put a permanent end to these repeated shenanigans. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I add a pro forma delete to discourage premature closure but I will be very happy to reverse this upon the presentation of convincing evidence for notability based upon accepted Wikipedia guidelines. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I may not vote, but almost all scientists have a bibliography section. In this case, the editors appear to be using the papers as evidence I have written in those fields; primary sources, but generally adequate. A secondary source would be the Math Reviews entry, which hardly anyone here has access to. As for sources which are not accessible, you are absolutely wrong. Print sources may be reliable even if not on the Internet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources do not have to be accessible to be reliable. That is absolutely not the case: reliable independent secondary sources only have to exist. They do not have to be online, or free, or in multiple libraries. They only have to exist. --NellieBly (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. We've done this enough times already, and this nomination adds nothing new. Jowa fan (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools of Winnipeg. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecole Leila North Community school[edit]

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

An average non-notable middle school. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs in the article so far satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - blank, and redirect to List of schools of Winnipeg. There is no policy or guideline that middle schools are inherently notable, but as redirection is often a preferred solution: Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article (policy), non notable schools that are proven to exist are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, the Notability template: If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted]], and summarised in WP:OUTCOMES, an objective essay that "is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy", they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA), or to the article about the locality, or to a list article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna International Hotelmanagement AG[edit]

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

Zero references to third-party sources to establish notability. Created and edited solely by its employees. Max Semenik (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This seems to have been created solely to advertise the company Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, it is Austria's largest hotel management company. That's just one source mentioning this. Wifione ^Message 09:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the light of WP:V#Notability, third party sources are not optional. Market share is not a substitute for verifiability. Sandstein 08:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (chat) 21:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backwoods Camp[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this camp. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there evidently was a significant report about Backwoods Camp in Birding World in 2000. However, the remainder of the online coverage is self published reviews and commercial travel agencies. Maybe the best thing to do would be to delete this stub and mention the Camp in Bhagwan Mahaveer Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. Sionk (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 12. Snotbot t • c » 04:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against early recreation with verifiable sources. Unfortunate that sources don't exist for an encyclopedic entry... Wifione ^Message 09:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Naber tribe[edit]

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

I only found unreliable sources that point to Wikipedia. This might be notable, but it is more than non-notable as it stands. It is unverifiable. Fails WP:N and WP:V. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Based on comments with respect to sources added Wifione ^Message 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bauerfeind[edit]

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

Offer to delete this article because there are no verifiable resources which can be used for corporation(according to Wikipedia:CORP) Namalex0111 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want to add some reliable sources, you can take a look for example here (Atlanta Business Chronicle, Ostthüringer Zeitung, Thüringische Landeszeitung etc.) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that all these sources have an advertising sense and don't meet Wikipedia:RS. Also there are no sources which prove notability of this organisation.

Namalex0111 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found sources independent of the subject and am adding them and rewriting and filling it out a little. The company is mentioned in several places as one of the worldwide leaders in compression hosiery, orthopedic inserts, and the like (including several Thuringian news articles and a mention as an example in Manager magazin, which is affiliated with Der Spiegel) and apparently its new HQ office building was one of the tallest in Thuringia when built. In my judgment it meets the standard for general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found and added as references a complete article on the company in Süddeutsche Zeitung (1, sadly paywalled) and a couple of substantive mentions in Die Welt (2, 3), plus an op-ed there by Hans B. Bauerfeind himself (4); there are also articles on him and the company in Frankenpost, which is a primarily local newspaper but not a Thuringian one. And the company owns a hotel that has made a splash. This meets the standard for national coverage; and I was able to add one non-PR mention in a US business publication. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are readily visible in google searches. Gsingh (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit pie[edit]

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

Dictionary definition (see WP:DICDEF). Sole reference is a Google search link. Possibly this would be a useful redirect to Game pie. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Game pie. It's a pie filled with wabbit. What more is there to say? Also Afd Chicken pie and Fish pie. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to game pie unless more substantial material can be found and referenced. Meelar (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below for references added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTFINISHED. This is an adequate stub article for now. I find it impossible to believe that the nominator actually looked for coverage about rabbit pies, and came up with nothing. His nomination reason is inaccurate too - the article already had more detail than would be considered a dictionary definition, and did have what can be classed as a reference over and above the bizarre Google search link (the fact the creator called it an External Link is irrelevant). So already, it's clearly not an unverifiable hoax topic is it? Combined with the fact that this article's existence probably only came to the nominator's attention for completely unrelated reasons to the topic, I can't see how this deletion proposal can possibly be entertained. There's no case for a redirect either (which isn't a matter for deletion anyway), which just makes it less likely that someone will improve the article if they find it while actually looking for it. I've wikilinked game pie in the first line, which is sufficient for navigation purposes. JoolsRun (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silly rabbit, redirecting is a perfectly valid result for an AfD. I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia Review is in any way relevant to this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to game pie. I don't see enough material in reliable sources to justify a standalone article at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below for references added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to game pie - or as I am reminded of such here - Duck pie, quack quack - You really can 00:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below for references added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per coverage in reliable, tertiary book sources. I added these to the article:

Albala, Ken; et al. (2010). The lost art of real cooking : rediscovering the pleasures of traditional food, one recipe at a time. New York: Penguin Group. ISBN 9780399535888. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Gates, Stefan (2005). Gastronaut : adventures in food for the romantic, the foolhardy, and the brave. Orlando: Harcourt. pp. 123–124. ISBN 0156030977. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
(Coverage from 1888)— Knapp, Louisa, ed. (May 1888). "The Practical Housekeeper". Volumes 5-6. Ladies' home journal and practical housekeeper. Retrieved January 20, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the text of the first two books that is viewable online has no mention of rabbit pie. If you own or can access those two books, could you possibly include page numbers and more information about what exactly about rabbit pie is mentioned? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the first link, scroll down. There are no page numbers on these pages. The second link reads just fine on my browser. The page numbers are already listed in the reference above. I'm unable to copy/paste from this webpage. Nice work improving the article! Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still not seeing it. And the person who coined the term "gastropub" must have never worked in a commercial kitchen; just like the trope "you don't want to know how sausages are made"... ah, but I digress.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough refs to pass GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Anna Frodesiak. Subject appropriate for a standalone article. See, e.g. Key lime pie and Apple pie, which, it could be argued, belong in a grand, unified 'Fruit pie' article. Yet they are also appropriately standalone. (Excuse me while I venture out for a slice or two – all this pie talk is making me hungry.) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be a bad comparison, since one can find literally thousands time more reliable sources for Apple pie and Key Lime pie than one can find for Rabbit pie. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many of the references in this article are actually about the subject. If the article on Wikipedia Review can be kept even though it only receives trivial passing mentions in articles about other topics, then this ought to be kept as well. The references provided clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Night Ranger (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can tell me what Wikipedia Review has to do with rabbit pie, since you are the second person to mention it in this AfD? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person who started this article also nominated the WR article for deletion. Also, based entirely on references, the ones in this article (as I mentioned in my keep rationale) cover rabbit pie more thoroughly than the references in the WR article cover that. Night Ranger (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. The assertion about a proverb about rabbit pie (or rabbit stew) may well be germane to some current events.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chapel Studios[edit]

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

Self-promotional article about a recording studio. Article has been written and maintained by a series of obviously self-promotional single purpose accounts for several years. No sign of independent media coverage; all three refs are clearly promotional and dependent on the subject. No sign of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage, no particularly notable acts recorded in the studio even, that i could find. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. I have also tried to find independent sources, and have failed. --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks too like an advert for my liking. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly snowing (NAC} (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This website doesn't appear to meet the requirements for notability namely: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Looking at the references it would seem that Wikipedia Review is only really mentioned in passing, it is not the principal subject of any of these references.

Given that this article has only really been the subject of one AfD back in 2005 which resulted in delete and was only restored via a deletion review in 2008. It could stand a debate as to whether it really meets with the WP:WEB guidelines. Rabbit:Farmer:Gun:Run... (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Many of the references are primary sources (WP itself or internet archive versions of it), and it does seem true that most, if not all, of the secondary sources just give passing mentions. I didn't see any articles that were primarily about WR. No more notable than Wikitruth, which was deleted a while ago. Night Ranger (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Guardian, The Register, and the Palo Alto Research Center satisfy thr threshold of WP:WEB. All in all, especially considering that the nominator created 1 article last June, then nothing til a few middling edits today before the nomination, a very ill-advised, bad-faith nomination. Quackity-quack. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... WR is briefly mentioned in those reliable sources but the articles aren't actually about WR. I'm not sure these three sources pass the threshold of trivial passing mentions. Night Ranger (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep. What coverage there is here would seem to meet the WP:WEB idea that articles about websites should be more than just guides and must describe achievements, impact and historical significance. The depth of coverage really is poor though. JoolsRun (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bet they're having a good time chatting about this discussion at Wikipedia Review... oh wait, maybe not. In any case, whether you like them or not, there's a decent case that the site meets WP:WEB. It certainly hasn't gotten tons of coverage, but in addition to the sources Tarc provides above, this and this are more than trivial mentions, in my opinion. Not that something need not be the main topic of the source material to qualify as "Significant coverage". (Keep) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per refs found by Tarc, appears to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some risk of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, also the wrong time to be having the debate until the domain name saga is cleared up. If the site has gone kaput, the article could be nominated again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article shouldn't be nominated again just because the website is taken down. Whether or not an article subject ceases to exist has nothing to do with whether it has achieved notability, because notability isn't temporary. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information: Wikipedia Review lives!--Scott Mac 10:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or at least some IP would have us believe it "lives," which is completely irrelevant to its notability. Notability is not temporary, and Wikipedia is not limited to being a directory of organizations which are still in operation. Many defunct movements and publications satisfy notability, by having adequate sourcing in reliable secondary sources. Edison (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information: In a manner of speaking, at least. Apparently "Selina" forgot to renew the domain name, giving the site a headache on what to do next.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP 184.172.174.94 claiming to be the current platform of Wikipedia Review is not a reliable source, and claims made there fail verifiability. Anyone could create a spoof site, or a mirror of old postings, with a couple of updates about present doings, or it could be the action of some would-be successor or splinter faction. The operators of W.R. could renew their registration of the official site, or a reliable secondary source could write about its resurrection, but this primary IP source does not merit inclusion in the article and should not be accepted here as evidence of anything. Edison (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The editors here who are visiting www.wikipediareview.com and claiming it is down are not a reliable source, and any claims they are making fail WP:V and WP:NOR. Anyone could make that up. Unless there is a reliable secondary source saying Wikipedia review is down, then we have to discount that information.--Scott Mac 14:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This view seems inconsistent with the article long having used as references six links to earlier versions of the same WR site. When the reference cited in the article as the official URL, www.wikipediareview.com, is clicked, it displays a message "NOTICE:This domain name expired on 1/16/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion. WELCOME TO: wikipediareview.com." That is presently cited as reference number 6. Don't the old refs to WR then also fail WP:V and WP:NOR? How can you pick and choose which versions of the WR site are reliable sources and which are O.R.? Edison (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage mentioned by Tarc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary: if the site is shut down and never returns, that has no effect on the previous coverage in reliable sources such as the articles listed by Mark Arsten and Tarc above. 28bytes (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Tarc. The fact it is currently down doesn't remove its notability. You really can 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sprechen Sie Delete Per Nom as non-notable navel-gazing cruft and this from someone who frequents that site even! Lol! --WR Reader (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone seems to have forgotten ((ARSnote)) (or maybe I'm just blind). It's been tagged with ((rescue)), folks. --N Y Kevin @899, i.e. 20:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability, once established as it has been, does not go away when a website goes down. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarc. I looked at the likely sources, and 5, 15, and 17 (If I remember the numbers correctly) constitute multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, passing the GNG. The fact that there are a bunch of primary sources there changes that not one bit. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like the sources satisfy the GNG to me. Not much else to say. Silver seren^C 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable news sources: [43], [44]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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