< 30 January 1 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was userfy. We do have articles about housing estates but in this case the best treatment is probably a paragraph in the Illingworth, West Yorkshire article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Park council estate, Halifax England. (the history of)[edit]

Abbey Park council estate, Halifax England. (the history of) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 23:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rick tallis[edit]

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

non notable musician, but possibly does not qualify for a7. one ref.

From the madeloud website " MadeLoud was started by band nerds who wanted to create a way for indie musicians of all genres to have their music heard. By giving indie artists the opportunity to share their work on their terms with music lovers everywhere, MadeLoud seeks to redefine the music business by returning control of music to its rightful owners: the musicians. "

That disqualifies it as a RS in my mind Gaijin42 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


John Richards (songwriter)[edit]

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

Can find no significant coverage, only announcements for upcoming gigs. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 23:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after discounting the several apparently canvassed and/or plainly silly arguments, there is no consensus to delete this article.  Sandstein  19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Albania[edit]

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

The term "Partition of Albania" does not exist in the literature as used in this article. Though a literature search reveals that a partitioning of Albania was proposed several times [1], it never actually occurred, certainly not as described in this article. The article begins with the premise that "Albania" is any Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians, and even some territories not inhabited by ethnic Albanians (e.g. Arta, Greece, or Nis, Serbia). As such, the article is in fact nothing more than a naive irredentist POV-fest about "lost ethnic Albanian lands" and is essentially a POV-fork of material included in Albania during the Balkan Wars. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article explains that: "The Partition of Albania (Albanian: Copëtimi i Shqipërisë) was a process of occupation, annexation and colonization of territories inhabited mostly by Albanians, and considered to be part of their nation, although under the Ottoman Empire during the First Partition in 1878-1881, and declared independent but not recognized, during the Second Partition in 1913."

The article didn't say as you claim that those "lands" were entirely inhabited by Albanians. The Albanians viewed some of those "lands" as historical part of their nation. The term "Partition of Albania" exists in the Albanian language, and it is viewed by them as a partition, thus it has to be translated into English as well. The term partition of Albania has been used in several Western books, although never as a separate topic from the League of Prizren or Balkan Wars for example. (Edvin (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

But "territories considered Albanian by Albanians" is not the same thing as Albania, do you understand? There was no Albania in 1878. Albania's borders were drawn for the first time in 1913, and have stayed the same ever since. It was never partitioned. I have no doubt that the term "Partition of Albania" exists in Albanian and is widely used, but that is not the case in English, and this is the English wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check this for the term: 2, or this reference 3. And when we discuss the Partition of Africa, or Partition of Poland, we discuss there partition of lands which are not the same thing as Africa or Poland. For example, the article Partition of Poland, discusses that Polish territories were partitioned between Powers of that time, although Poland at that time was under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Albania had "borders" even before 1913, there were the Albanian vilayets, and there was the Albanian state during 144-1479 which was independent and repelled the Ottoman armies.

Anyway, the opinion of just one person cannot determine if an article should be deleted or not. We need many more opinions for this article. (Edvin (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The term "Partition of Poland" exists in English because there was a state named "Poland", with recognized borders, and this state was partitioned between 3 other countries. In the case of Albania, there was no state of Albania with internationally recognized borders until 1913. The state of Albania that was created in 1913 was never partitioned. Its borders are the same as they were in 1913. And no, those four vilayets are not the same thing as "Albania". Nor were they "Albanian" in any sense, they were multi-ethnic, as all Ottoman vilayets. If you can't understand that in English usage "Albania" means the current state of Albania (this Albania, not this one), and not the four vilayets, then I have nothing further to say to you. Athenean (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a state called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was not specifically called "Poland". In this case you are saying that Poland is Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but it is the same like saying that Ottoman Empire was Turkey, when in reality there were many more countries comprising it. Albania declared independence on 28 November 1912. And the independent Government headed by Ismail Qemali declared independence of this state (see map), although most of this territory was occupied by Serb, Montenegrin and Greek armies. In July 1913 the 6 powers decided to partition the independent state declared on 28 November 1913, and they drew a map according to their interests. What is here not to understand? For a year, this Albania was declared independent. In July 1913, it was partitioned. As i said to you before, Albania was independent also from 1444-1479 so we have an independent state even before, although at that time borders didn't have the same meaning they have today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edvini (talk • contribs) 09:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that there was no Albania before 1913, but how can you explain that article History of Albania does not only include history from 1913, but it includes history from from the 4th century BC?--Olsi (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Edvini and I think that this article should not be deleted.--Olsi (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give you another analogy to the "Partition of Poland", and "Partition of Albania". In Wikipedia there is a very long article about Partition of India. And it is called Partition of India, although it started already when there was no India, but a British colony. And there was no Indian state before. It similar to the case of Partition of Albania, when Albania declared independence from Ottoman Empire, was occupied by its neighbors, and was partitioned a year later. Why Partition of India can be an accepted term even when there was no Indian state, but Partition of Albania cannot be accepted although you had an Albanian State from 28 Nov. 1912? And User: Athenean argues that a term which is used in a language about something which happened to that language, cannot be used in English just because someone doesn't like it. It is like saying that Africans are banned to say that they were partitioned and colonized, just because the English-speaking world saw it as "Bringing civilization to them"... Anyways, i brought tons of evidence even from Western, English-speaking world, where the Term Partition of Albania is used and recognized. (Edvin (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not even 3.000...--WhiteWriter speaks 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sock alert: This account was created today [2], for the sole purpose of participating in the AfD and editing the nominated article. Almost certainly a sock, most likely User:Sulmues (judging by the tone and considering he is the most prolific Albanian sockppuppeteer). Athenean (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues has his own account and it is not blocked, why he would create a new one just to vote here?--Olsi (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, this account was created today for the sole purpose of participating at this Afd [5]. Doubtless due to canvassing by Edvini [6]. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor argument, I changed my username from Tfts to Tëfci and as Tfts I contributed since september 2010 in the English Wikipedia. --Tëfcí (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I guess you found out about this discussion by sheer coincidence. Athenean (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never said. --Tëfcí (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Obviously almost all of the gbooks hits cover a completely irrelevant time period that of wwii 1939-1946 and wwi 1914-1918, so what this article tries to cover isn't related with the described events.Alexikoua (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sources cited in the article. Those covering the period of WWII and WWI are not relevant to this article and to the definition "Partition of Albania", I found at least 20 gbooks covering this important moment of Albanian history. Though, i checked only Western, English sources, leaving aside Albanian, Serb, or Greek sources which might be biased. (Edvin (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I get almost 1,400 when I include "Balkan Wars" in the search. [8]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Alert: The large number of Keep votes by users active on the Albanian wikipedia (Euridit, Olsi, Tefci) is due to disruptive canvassing by Edvini: [9] Athenean (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional canvassing[edit]

There is also this [[10]] by another user.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more than a nationalistic manifesto, in order to find support by his co-ethnics.Alexikoua (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it may be, but there is also an AfD section on the Wikiproject Albania page if you've never noticed. Also, there are users not affiliated with Albanian wiki or WPAL that voted "Keep." Besides, most (or all) of the votes for "Delete" are from known Greeks and Serbs which is completely fine if done innocently, but it also arouses some suspicion.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas most of the "keep" votes are from Albanian users, some of which created an account on en-wiki specifically to vote here, one of whom is a sock of a known troublemaker (Sulmues). Not innocent at all, and past suspicion, as we have proof. Athenean (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(As two non-Albanian editors vote for a keep). Anyway, I never denied that what they did is wrong so I don't really understand the point of your comment.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did search beforehand, and if you look closely at the results of the scholar search 1) many are false hits, 2) even those that aren't refer to a proposed partition, not a partition that actually occurred, as the article is currently written and 3) they mostly refer to the WWII era, not the 1878-1913 era. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Hartinger[edit]

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

This writer is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable, independent, third party sources. Though his writings do exist, especially in the blogosphere, they have not garnered significance through reliable third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. This subject does not fare any better under the alternative criteria at WP:WRITER. For now, it's just WP:TOOSOON. JFHJr (㊟) 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Eyre (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Everything's already listed in Jane Eyre. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote based on points made by User:JHunterJ OSU1980 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users likely get here by typing in 'Jane Eyre', arriving at Jane Eyre and clicking on the hatnote when they realize this article is about the book and they want the film/tv show/ opera etc. Which, I would suggest is how people access non-primary topic dab pages most of the time. Alternatively they don't know what they are looking for and actively seek out the dab page. Redirecting a dab page to an article would be misleading. France3470 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean N. Kennedy[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:BIO. Only one external link stating individual has played no games and has no statistics. OSU1980 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article originally created by user User:Ske878 with no other contributions other than the creation of this page.
Article edited by User:Kennedynicholson three times. Two [12] [13] of this users only contributions include attempts to delete/blank the page entirely.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bart Thompson. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Campus[edit]

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

I found no notability for this comic book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What I'm finding right now is that this is a self-published series (the comic creator also started the publishing company that is printing them) and that most of the sources I'm finding are blogs. Blogs cannot be used as a reliable source unless it's by someone that's considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, meaning that they're someone who is often quoted in books or are so notable themselves that they'd have articles written about them. Most blogs do not fill this requirement, not even if they've been around for a long time and have a big following. A great example is the book blog "Book Chick City". They've been around forever and have a large number of followers, but still wouldn't be considered a reliable blog source. It's kind of tricky when it comes to that sort of thing, but a good rule of thumb is to look at how the blog is published. If the blog has something like "Blogger", "Wordpress" or the like in the URL or anywhere else in the blog, it shouldn't be linked to. The only exception I've seen is where the ALA has a blog that they run through Blogger. I'm still looking and I'm trying to improve the article, but just existing isn't enough to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Art4Charity[edit]

Art4Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability for this organization. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sobel (Sierra Leone)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Warner University#Athletics. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Royals baseball[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Run of the mill NAIA team with no apparent significance. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For me, only NCAA D1 programs and exceptional lower division programs are notable. In this case, I'd say merge, but there isn't even any information to merge with the Warner University article's section on athletics. Kithira (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Pace[edit]

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

Twice speedy deleted for lack of asserted notablity. Dubiously seems to assert future notability based on a hazily defined upcoming project. bd2412 T 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Quito B200 King Air crash[edit]

2009 Quito B200 King Air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Military small plane crash. Not notable per WP:Aircrash William 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Art[edit]

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

Not notable. According to this article's main contributor, this is a fledgling art movement that naturally wouldn't see significant coverage because it's new. The main contributor is also one of this "movement's" founders, so the conflict of interest is obvious. While the article appears to have many sources, most of these are self-published. The rest are locally sourced about local events that weren't especially otherwise notable. I'd outlined numerous problems with the articles a couple of months ago and explained them to the contributor, but the contributor has (for obvious reasons) been unable to fix this problems as the subject itself just isn't salvageable. The bottom line is all too familiar: Wikipedia just isn't the place to go when you want to promote yourself into notability. Wikipedia is the place to go *after* you become notable. Rklawton (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tilter[edit]

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

FunkyCanute (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a prototype of a vehicle that claims it will go into production. Nothing particularly notable. Lack of authoritative sources. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale now duly given. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:33, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete. There has been balaced reporting from various sources giving valid evaluations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.59.93 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC) — 121.218.59.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linea Pelle[edit]

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

Not notable and wholly unreferenced. Fails WP:CORP  Velella  Velella Talk   21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Salvador, without prejudice against restoration of the article citing reliable sources to ascribe notability. Deryck C. 17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Capilla 525[edit]

La Capilla 525 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This apartment complex lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for notability for over a year. Zero refs. Created by a 3-articles-edited-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A newspaper article like that would probably exist about any apartment building, and this one has only 30 units. So are all apartment buildings notable? And is "luxury" more notable than non-luxury, just because is more broadly advertised? I couldn't find any detailed notability guidelines for buildings, do we not have any? For anybody interested, there is a Spanish Wiki version at es:Torre 525 Avenida La Capilla. --Elekhh (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a comment, highlighting the problem of a lack of consistent guidelines regarding the notability of buildings, even if probably is not the right place to discuss it. I often see articles as this one deleted when are about buildings in India or Brazil, but kept when is an US building (check out Category:Apartment buildings in the United States). The reason is of course the availability of online English sources and better quality of writing. The result is systemic bias. That being said, I lean towards delete or possible part-merge into San Salvador#Urban development or a to be created Housing in El Salvador, if anybody wishes to rescue it. --ELEKHHT 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response. I'm fine with delete (obviously; as nom). Could live with redirect to the location you indicate (if verifiable). I think a merge would not be in order, however. All the text is uncited. And challenged (if that is not clear, I challenge it). As such, per WP:CHALLENGED, it would require inline cites that it does not have. Of course, if redirected, people could always create properly sourced info at the target article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Croatia[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The abstract establishes that Hidden Croatia is the main subject of the articles. Cunard (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but the abstracts are very short and what they do include appears to be pretty trivial press-release type material. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source is titled "Launchpad: Hidden Croatia woos the trade" and is written by Charlotte Walsh. The available text is:

    Hidden Croatia is moving beyond direct selling and is courting the trade for the first time with a brochure and website for agents.

    The Croatian specialist has been operating for five years as a direct business, and is now looking to increase its carryings from 2,200 to...

    I interpret the text as being a neutral news article from the Travel Trade Gazette, a "weekly newspaper for the travel industry" (from its Wikipedia article) and indicating that there is further, likely substantial coverage, about Hidden Croatia under the paywall. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 over reliability of cited sources, default to taking no administrative action, without prejudice against a possible merge proposal outside the AfD process. Deryck C. 17:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina (activist)[edit]

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

Article on a pseudonym. Single source (Jerusalem Post) and a passing mention (Asia Times) do not establish notability for a stand alone article. The JP article only repeats the self-published claims of Sina's website. All verifiable info can be located at the website's article, Faith Freedom International. Article has a tendency to either be a WP:SOAPBOX for Sina/FFI's views, or a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the merits of the arguments are debated. Unless we can find reliable info on Ali Sina himself, this should be deleted.

Previous AfDs:

The Interior (Talk) 06:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, just noticed your addition. Your source [16] is a press release from the poorly named SION. Doesn't really help with notability, or even verifying who this person is. He's a doctor? The Interior (Talk) 05:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters is one of the biggest news agencies in the world. They will not publish any news release. All members of SION are notable personalitie. This is an important international organization. User: OceanSplash 07:48 25 January 2012
  • I don't know their selection criteria for press releases, but they do preface it with "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." Which makes it self-published (though relayed through Reuters). The Interior (Talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Re the pseudonym issue, that is not the reason for deletion. The reason is lack of reliable, verifiable information on which we can base a biographical article. With MM, Larry King, etc. that is not a problem. The Interior (Talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the google Test if you don't mind me asking? The Interior (Talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this google test Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work like that. It's explained on the page itself why a Google test is not a measure of notability - see Wikipedia:GOOGLETEST#Notability - and also WP:GOOGLEHITS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify all I said in addition to being the founder of an organisation ,that he had sufficient hits on the net.Of course hits alone do not mean notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is that he had sufficient RS hits on the net, that is a reasonable rationale. If a person has sufficient substantial RS coverage, they meet WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or else Weak Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. Sina is doing about the same thing as Mr. Tzotzis is doing: holding debates with notable people, and telling on his own website his opinion about Islam. The main difference is that Ali Sina is slightly more famous than Tzortzis, as one could see in the number of third-party references (and here, where he is placed at the same level as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and Taslima Nasrin). This might be weakly in favour of Sina. On the other hand, as there is already an article about his website, I think it is a bit overdone to have TWO articles on Sina's work. I would say that we merge the article with the FFI article, on the condition that nothing substantial will be deleted for the reason that this article is about FFI, and not about Sina. Jeff5102 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We all agree that the Jerusalem Post article is substantial RS coverage. In my opinion the other RS coverage -- even that shown in the other refs now in the article -- is sufficient to indicate the necessary substantial multiple RS coverage. There are enough RS refs, from all over the world, to reflect notability here. Half a dozen editors have noted the same thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, those half dozen editors don't appear to have read our notability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They appear to have read it, and to be applying it dispassionately. Ros -- we've just gone through two noms by you where you also attacked the editors for not agreeing with you, in similar fashion. And those both ended up closing as keeps, with your view not being the consensus one. Its possible to have different views, but there's no need to belittle everyone whose view differs from yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you literally have editors arguing that the fact that reliable sources haven't covered the subject is a reason why we should cover him, or that vanity presses or mentions in a list constitute reliable significant coverage, I think we can safely say that at least some of the editors have not read the notability and reliability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources have been recently added to demonstrate notability, I've looked at some of these below.
  • LaRed21 - not a reliable source - user submitted content.
  • Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out is published by World Net Daily - see RSN discussion here
  • Death of the Grown-up - This is not available in preview, how did the editor view this content? Where is the mention? What is the mention? Page numbers (and an excerpt) would be nice if I'm to verify this.
  • Infiltration: how Muslim spies and subversives have penetrated Washington By Paul E. Sperry - First, this is just an excerpt with no information on the subject at all. Nelson Current is World Net Daily, see above
  • Beyond jihad: critical voices from inside Islam - Academica is an on demand publisher - not RS.
In short, these are very shaky refs. But more importantly, there still is no substantial coverage. It's true, there is quite a few mentions of Ali Sina out there in Googleland, but I haven't been able to find any non-fringe coverage. (i'll take a look at the PDF's when I get back to my home unit) The Interior (Talk) 06:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources PDF sources added:
  • Arches Quarterly: single, passing mention
  • Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out - single, passing mention. You have attached this to Dissent (magazine) magazine, this is not indicated by the publishing information.
  • “Leaving Islam: A Preliminary Study of Conversion out of Islam” Is an unpublished symposium report - see this caveat on the title page: [© Draft Paper. Please do not cite without author's permission]. Not RS.
  • I also note that you have formatted the Reuter's press release as a news report. This (if used at all) needs to be clearly labelled as a press release. There's a template here: WP:CITET. The Interior (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is beyond cavil that the article in The Jerusalem Post is substantial RS coverage. As to the number of other articles in addition to that one, at times we have a situation where articles are only local in nature. That's not the case here -- quite the opposite; the subject has attracted international coverage. Indeed, even coverage in different languages. WP:GNG states that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Here, we have a large number of RS sources covering the subject, in addition to the significant substantive treatment by The Jerusalem Post, and their "nature" is, helpfully, an international one. Furthermore, WP:BASIC tells us that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This subject clearly meets that standard. It in fact does have substantial coverage, by The Jerusalem Post. And in addition, it has coverage by a number of RS sources -- per the guideline, those may be combined to further demonstrate the "multiple" part of the RS coverage requirement. Some of the dozen and a half sources are longer than other, but the books and articles and paper as a whole certainly meet the above standard, when couple with the full-fledged, devoted-to-the subject, article in The Jerusalem Post. It is not surprise therefore that -- even in the face of one or two editors constantly getting in the face of each keep !voter -- half a dozen editors here have !voted keep, more than have indicated support for either other option.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm sure you know, AfDs are discussions, not votes. In regards to your above argument, it hinges on multiple mentions in reliable sources. I still feel that hasn't been demonstrated. You haven't replied to any of the specific challenges to the refs you have added, which do not meet the RS threshold. The Interior (Talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the new sources added, have you found one that gives substantial coverage and meets our RS benchmark? I'm concerned that all that citing did was give an appearance of a well sourced article. Please take another look at those sources. The Interior (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Our RS policy isn't suspended during AFDs, as much as users sometimes like to stack articles with bad references to make them look more notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but I do see now that whatever I write here, you people will never stop arguing me. I have better things to do.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the various single purpose fan accounts aren't convincing, sufficient coverage in reliable sources seems to exist for this financier and adventurer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wimmer[edit]

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

No hits on google news for "per wimmer", biography does not justify why this person is notable. Sandman888 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Morant[edit]

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

Fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NACTOR Exok (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to redirect, given that the suggested target does not discuss this subject.Kubigula (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Place Hotel[edit]

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

I've actually stayed here. While the hotel was mentioned recently in the news, as the site of a January 4th shooting incident, I am unable to find any notability on Google, Gnews and Gbooks (aside from the usual travel guide listings and reviews). Delete per WP:CORP & WP:NOTTRAVEL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also stayed at the Bond Place Hotel numerous times when I'm looking for $9 PlayStation 3 games to buy from the Game Barn. If there is nothing we can do for this article, I believe this article should become a redirect page to the Downtown Toronto article instead of being deleted outright. GVnayR (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dracula in popular culture#Early adaptations. Consensus is that although there are documented rumors and speculations about the existence of this film, there is not enough material to sustain an article.  Sandstein  19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drakula (1920 film)[edit]

Drakula (1920 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a supposed film that may very likely not exist. It only has a single source, which is not a reliable third party source. It clearly fails Wikipedia: Notability, and while I don't think it was intentional on the part of the article creator, it could very well fall under Wikipedia: Hoax. It really should just be speedy deleted, but it does not meet any of the criteria to make it eligible for that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Dracula Book by Donald F. Glut published in 1975 mentions the possible movie, "Other film versions of Dracula are reported to have been made about this time — one being Russian — but there is no real verification to substantiate these claims." Some more recent books mention the possible Russian film without noting its questionable existence.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The film has an article on the Russian (and Ukrainian) wikipedia, I noticed, see ru:Дракула (фильм, 1920) (google translate link: [21]). The ru wikipedia article includes a link to a forum discussing the existence of the film (google translate link: [22]), and one poster scanned pages he says come from a Russian encylopedia, which mention the film, e.g., [23]. The ru article claims there are mentions of the films in Госфильмфонд, which I think they are saying is some film magazine.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1921 Hungarian film is supposedly a different film, btw, see Dracula's Death.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources differ on that. I can't access the Cinefantastique article used as the only source for that article (an AfD for Dracula's Death might be warranted for that one as well), but a google search on "Drakula 1920" and "Dracula's Death" reveals authors giving conflicting dates (1920-1921), titles (Dracula-Drakula), and countries of origin (Russia-Hungary) - all with the qualifiers "supposedly", "presumably", and "it has been reported". The mystery surrounding this alleged film might merit inclusion in a more generalized article such as mentioned above, while stressing the conflicting sources, but there's not enough meat on the bone for a standalone article. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some arguments are being made for a merge with Robert Morey. This is ultimately an editorial decision, and could still be enacted. At the moment there is clearly no consensus to delete, and it looks like a consensus to keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moon-God Allah[edit]

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

I am completing this nomination on behalf of the editor who started it, but who has used the template incorrectly. The original nominator user:Kazemita1, wrote "Per my inquiry from Fringe theories noticeboard, the majority of people attending the discussion agree this is a clear case of WP:FRINGE." Paul B (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's one published source discussing this fringe theory from the page you cite — Tennent: Theology in the Context of World Christianity. This ultimately should come down to sourcing, whether there is enough published material pushing this fringe theory and contrary material debunking it to constitute notability. My opinion is that such sourcing exists. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have heavily rewritten the article since the nomination, cutting and adding material. I think the topic is notable, but the title should be changed to Allah as Moon-God and it should emphasise mainstream views per WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
(add to top of list)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article. Several editors support a merge and this discussion should be continued on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dartington Primary School[edit]

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

A primary school whose only claim to notability is being old. The buildings would warrant discussion in the main Dartington article, but the school itself now occupies a brand new building and nothing else about it notable. Suggest, as per common practice with primary schools, that it is redirected to the village article. Bob Re-born (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The bar for primary schools to cross to demonstrate their notability is just (arbitrarily) very high. For the record, I disagree, and think school age is a good criterion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A school (or, in fact, any organisation) continues to exist regardless of the fact that it may have moved sites. The history section is the claim to notability for this particular article, so, you're right, without that section "the article is nothing", but that's the whole point. Merging the article with the locality, in this case, would almost certainly result in the loss of content because much of the information would (or should) be considered trivial to the locality. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that it moved sites? There are no references to authenticate that assertion. And a read of the content would seem to indicate that it wasn't te same school on different sites. Rather it was most obviously at least 2 quite different schools within the same area/village. They had different names and different sites. This is not about a single historic entity tat has survived the ravages of time. Rather it is an uncorroborated commentary on the alleged educational history of a minor English village. It is most certainly not notable. Fmph (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the school had moved sites, you did. And, you're right! There are no references to authenticate the rest of your commentary either. It's certainly not presented the way you read it in the article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if your house has any societal value (unlike schools), but I'm pretty sure that such buildings aren't covered under WP:ORG (perhaps you could ask at WP:WPARCH). Your argument, therefore, is a rather distractingly embarrassed kipper.
As to "general consensus", you, again, misrepresent the truth. The general consensus is that non-notable schools are redirected not "tossed". This is a notable school for the reasons already given. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that isn't keep is tossed, IMO. And to say that WP:ORG should be interpreted as "anything that's old is notable" is a gross misinterpretation of policy. Furthermore, your allegations that I misrepresent the truth are a) personal attacks, and b) have been refuted by numerous editors in prior discussions you were privy to Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The school has only been a primary school for a short period of existence (since 1939). For the remaining 150 years of its history it was a school educating children of all ages so it was effectively the equivalent of a secondary school today. It is therefore very different from a bog standard modern primary school. Dahliarose (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeff Hammond (actor). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (2009 film)[edit]

Black Friday (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small independent film. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human interaction management[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, patent nonsense and coatrack spam: Human Interaction Management (HIM) is a set of management principles, patterns and techniques complementary to Business process management. HIM provides process-based support for innovative, adaptive, collaborative human work and allows it to be integrated in a structured way with more routinized work processes that are often largely automated. This had been deleted and redirected in a prior AFD, to business process management, which is scarcely better than this. But all you get here are sales slogans and attempts at clever acronyms -

- the usual random lists (1. Top-down.... 2. Middle-out.... 3. Bottom-up.... I think you left out 4. Upside-down.) The article has references, but no footnotes, leaving you guessing whether any of the glittery slogans of the article are actually supported by any sources. Some of the sources themselves look dodgy, and don't sound like reliable sources; I suspect that stuff like:

will be more like infomercials in print rather than reliable sources. The Harrison-Broninsky book is called "the book" at the Human Interaction Management website, which of course is first among the external links. This suggests to me that this article and neologism is promoting some outfit's management consultancy or how-to-manage-people text.

If there's a subject here, you won't learn anything about it from this text. Recommend deleting this and creating a protected redirect to business process management per the prior AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jhang#Education. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Model School,Jhang[edit]

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

Elementary schools are not inherently notable and no apparent notability for this school. PROD declined without explanation. Tried to redirect to local government article and that was reverted. Note that there is no school district article to redirect this to. Safiel (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even for Web ephemera, adequate reliable sourcing is the core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:V#Notability), and the "keep" opinion gloss over the article's sourcing iproblems or ignore them.  Sandstein  17:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slender-Man[edit]

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

Fictional character for which I could not find significant coverage beyond user-contributed content online. See the deletion logs at Slender Man and Slenderman for CSDs and AFD discussions on the same subject. wctaiwan (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article actually has its own wiki along with it mentioned in multiple wiki's like mythical creatures and beast. Yeah some pokemon don't get their own article, but pokemon are way less likely to exist plus there about 700 pokemon and all have at least a paragraph of its attributes, where this slender man has been written on Egyptian Hieroglyphs and seen as a paranormal phenomenon. It can be merged but it deserve's it own article for one day it could be a marvel comic character or thriller movie. It still has potential to add a rack load of info to it. It may not be notable like Medusa or a more realistic creature like Kraken colossal octopus but its decent enough.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional snowboarders[edit]

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

Unsourced list of 3 people. List itself is not particularly notable per WP:NLIST. v/r - TP 13:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iraena Asher[edit]

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

Another of the millions of missing persons cases that happen around the world every year. No evidence of the person or the case being significantly notable. As I have repeatedly stated, Wikipedia is not the place for listing these cases. Dmol (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've never claimed that the case didn't receive press coverage, as that is quite normal for most disappearances. The media will often drag it out again for anniversaries and other flimsy excuses such as her sister's activities. But that does not change the fact that it is still not a case notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia.--Dmol (talk) 11:04, 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, Deryck C. 13:35, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayy Von Alexander[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG from what I have failed to find. SarahStierch (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overclass[edit]

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

Not widely used enough to warrant an article. Basically, this is just a neologism for "upper class" or "elite" (which we already have articles for). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and until we can write more than a brief definition here, we should remove the article by redirecting it to Upper class. Mesoderm (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete There is a clear consensus to delete due to lack of reliable sources to meet notability. For the record, my own checks for other purposes concur, as many of the citations don't even mention Ellis, making me wonder about a semi-elaborate hoax. The article has also been subject to recent BLP-violating edits, another reason for getting on with closing this and deleting it now, given the evident consensus --Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch Ellis[edit]

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

No evidence of him ever meeting WP:MUSIC, couldn't find much in google that are reliable sources. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON plus a conflict of interest to boot. Delete Secret account 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough evidence that meet WP:MUSIC. In this article there is more than enough [[WP:RS|reliable sources] cited ]. Tommylane1 23:08, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Please let all of us that try to keep this page up to date know what sources that "you" feel are more reliable? Tommylane1 21:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

It's not what Secret "feels" is reliable, it's what the policy says is reliable. Affiliated and user-generated content are not considered reliable sources for notability per the general notability guideline. For what it's worth, a few reliable sources would be: reviews in national newspapers or magazines, a few paragraphs of coverage in a book from a major or well-regarded specialist publisher, or in-depth television or radio coverage (i.e. a section or programme on Sketch Ellis and his work, not simply airplay). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 31 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, BusterD (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Score Project[edit]

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

An educational project being promoted by someone involved in it. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St Bede's School, Hailsham. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bede's Prep School[edit]

St. Bede's Prep School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Preparatory (primary) school with nothing substantial to establish its notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A better redirect might be to the senior school, St Bede's School, Hailsham, which already contains some content about this school in its history section. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a redirect is beneficial in that it would probably deter any attempt at recreation. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

The article makes a claim for notability in that it is approximately 115 years old. Only a very strict reading of WP:ORG would deny this historicity. Therefore, the school is historically (and educationally) notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I highlighted "history" and "education" in the above quote from WP:ORG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Houses aren't of societal value and aren't covered under WP:ORG. Schools are. This school is notable because of it's historic and educational value. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bush[edit]

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

Minor playwright. At least, there's nothing in the text even indicating otherwise, and not even any references at all to back up what does say. Calton | Talk 11:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porntourage[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly hi! 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 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 talkabout my edits? 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vedette (showgirl)[edit]

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

We already have an article on this topic: showgirl. Note how the vast majority of the content of this article is cribbed directly from showgirl. Merging is unnecessary due to the lack of original content, and redirecting is unnecessary because of the unliklihood of the search term being used with the parenthetical. I have updated vedette (disambiguation) to include a link to showgirl. Powers T 16:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 25 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 talkabout my edits? 11:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decision about whether to merge and where to merge can take place on the article's talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vega-Bray Observatory[edit]

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

NN. It is a commercial "recreational" observatory that now operates under a different name. It has no cites in the NASA/SAO ADS. It has no large (gt. ~ 0.8 m) telescopes. The text reads like advert. Thetrick (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has gotten spammy over the 7 years since I created it. Probably should just be redirected to San Pedro Valley Observatory... I'll try to create a page there.--Rayc (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should be purged entirely. V-B never had any notability. --Thetrick (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of mentioning a defunct 3-4 room B&B? V-B had no influence on the body of astronomical knowledge, and it never garnered any more than PR-style mentions in newspapers. And it's not even in Benson - it's about 2 miles outside the built-up area and outside the city limits AFAICT. --Thetrick (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The influence on the body of astronomical knowledge is irrelevant, as the same can be said of any planetarium and most public observatories. Its in the interest of science as a whole to have an educated and knowledgeable populace, and public observatories contribute to that goal. Placing it outside the city limits is entirely appropriate for an observatory. Two miles makes it readily accessible from that locale. Ergo, my preference remains a merge. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:24, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 14:27, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, but also no demonstration of notability.Kubigula (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dilshad Garden[edit]

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

This appears to be non-notable--if anything, the article is a listing of things found there, a listing that smacks of promotion. Google News provides nothing but mentions as a locale, and Google Books provides nothing but hits for the place as part of business and other addresses. Article has been tagged for an eternity. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:25, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPFOS[edit]

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

Description of a piece of very specialised software. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. Essentially an advert or user guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete for lack of notability, even after taking the new source into account. Deryck C. 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imayam TV[edit]

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

Zero refs. Zero ELs. There is one article in The Hindu, but other than that I've only found trivial passing mention in RSs, and few of those. Appears to fail to meet our notability requirements. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Northamerica1000(talk) 04:50, 23 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 talkabout my edits? 14:21, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most comments below agree that there are Korean-language sources supporting the notability of this game; to avoid a 3rd AfD, please go and cite those in the article soon. Deryck C. 23:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special Force (online game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. There are sources in the article, but they don't suit our purposes. We've got (1) a press release about the publisher, (2) a tournament put on by the publisher, (3) a press release about a tournament merely mentioning the game, (4) an article about the sequel, which appears to be in beta testing, (5) an amateur review on a directory site, and (6) another amateur review on a directory site. Note that OnRPG appears to be affiliated with MMO Hut, which is specifically considered unreliable on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. As I mentioned in the previous AfD under the name Special Force Online, this article has a history of being deleted and recreated under different names to bypass deletion review, so I'd recommend salting this name as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:03, 24 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) Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:05, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Soft Delete. Treating this as an expired PROD. In case things do still come up, or someone saves the day by finding an alternative name, and sources are easier to find, undeletion is available at WP:REFUND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sathon – Khlong Toei Express Boat[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Is not mentioned in either the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning's or the Marine Department's websites. In fact, I couldn't find any online evidence of its existence, in Thai or English (apart from Wikipedia article mirrors & forks). Paul_012 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:18, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haitai Oh! Yes Choco Cake[edit]

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

Product with dubious notability. ZZArch talk to me 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if deletion is necessary. It's simply showing us what "Oh! Yes Choco Cake" is. With a picture, I think it would be totally worthy of staying. Take Choco Pie, for example. They are basically the same types of snacks, yet Choco Pie does not have an AfD. What do you all think? Nanakoe11 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming/moving can be done through normal editorial process Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Traralgon[edit]

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

I found absolutely no coverage of this shopping mall. [59] Till I Go Home (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidental mentions:

Radio's shifting stars to enjoy station views in The Age
Bean there, paid for that in Herald Sun
A gallery of good ideas, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, August 12, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 075
In Brief, Leader - Moonee Valley Gazette (Melbourne, Australia) - Monday, August 2, 2010, Edition: 1 - MV, Section: News, Page: 011
Leading role in region's rebirth, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, July 29, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 065
Our cover stars, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: ENERGISE ENTERPRISE, Page: N03
Coastal getaway her pride and Joy, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, July 8, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 063
QUICK PICK, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, December 2, 2008, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESS, Page: 058
Bashed man critical - ASSAULT, Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - Monday, January 17, 2011, Edition: First, Section: News, Page: 6
AAP News: VIC:Man fights for life after assault, AAP News (Australia) - Sunday, January 16, 2011, Provided By: Financial Times Limited - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, Index Terms: Crimes ; General News ; Justice Public Order & Safety Activities, Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings exc ; Miniwarehouse ; Lessors of Real Estate ; Police Protection ; Postal Service ; Public Admin ; Real Estate ; Real Estate & Rental & Leasing ; Transportation & Warehousing, Location(s): Australia Australasia
Property group is cashed up and itching to play - Xchange, Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia) - Thursday, April 17, 2008, Author: Edited by Danny John, Edition: First, Section: Business, Page: 28
New owner in centre swap, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - Wednesday, August 25, 2004, Author: Monique Bouma, Edition: 1, Section: News, Page: 003
Stockland to redevelop Tooronga Village shopping centre, Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, August 3, 2004, Author: Fleur Leyden, Edition: First, Section: Business, Page: 1

The first mention puts the shopping mall as existing during the 1980s, which suggests sources probably exist offline from that period that are not easily accessible online. The history is something brought up in a several other sources that mention the centre. There is a major problem of sources that can be used to prove WP:GNG being only available offline, and thus we're left to find sources that suggest if we went to those offline sources they would exist. The above adequately do that in my opinion. --LauraHale (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - In cleaning up links to this article I found an appropriate redirect target (the artist who created the album, per WP:NSONGS), so I created the redirect. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamishegi[edit]

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

This album lacks substantial, multiple, non-passing coverage in RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Register of Historic Places. Note that this requires a redirect for licensing reasons, see WP:MERGE, if any content of substance is merged.  Sandstein  19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent past[edit]

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

undefined and nonconstant concept. There are articles on years, decades, and generations that fulfill time period covered in more defined and constant way. SkyMachine (++) 08:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the UK Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the Australian Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the German Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the US Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems like a non-notable intersection of a certain type of pop group and those groups having number-one singles. One can find a favorite group's number ones at List of UK Singles Chart number ones and the like. And unlike List of UK hit singles by footballers, there does not appear to be coverage on the topic in outside sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars --(talk) 07:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the articles to run alongside the main article of boy bands as well as list of best selling to show popularity and trends over the decades as mentioned in the main article. The articles are meant for anyone interested in which songs reached number one in the four countries focussed in the article and as a complete #1 discography per country. Musicality123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicality123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shivdeep waman lande[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS; WP:BIO ZZArch talk to me 07:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are both exactly the same article under two different titles. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. So if there is anything salvageable from this article, it can be merged with the more appropriate one. Otherwise, simply redirect. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article qualifies for a speedy delete under WP:CSD#A10. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is consensus that the topic is notable but that the current content is poor. There is no consensus about whether this means that it should be deleted or kept until a full rewrite occurs.  Sandstein  19:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarian violence among Muslims[edit]

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

What exactly is the point of this article? After removing the unref'd material, we have two refs, the Beeb and the Post. This is not OK for such a huge and contentious subject which would require a lot scholarly work to be any kind of useful article. Better no article than this. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aural Psynapse[edit]

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

Non-notable single not fulfilling WP:NMUSIC or the WP:GNG. A412 (Talk * C) 06:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yasi (video game)[edit]

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

No surprise that I nosi references for a game "developed by independent enthusiasts" for a defunct console. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.I have to agree with Clarity here. Can't find the particular game in any notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.68.243 (talk) 13:07, 31 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). — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, because the only editor who has added content here blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jurabek Labaratories[edit]

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

Identical article (see original version) by same SPA has twice previously been deleted as a copyright violation. Somehow, what applied the last two times didn't this time.

Following the admin's lead, I removed the copyright violations individually—which left virtually nothing. No sources were given, and the only mentions of this company I found (outside of their own site) were to tangential press releases (example).

The subject's sole bid for notability is the claim that it's "one of the largest medicine manufacturer and retailer headquartered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan." While Tashkent is a large city, it isn't known for its manufacturing prowess or its pharmaceutical/healthcare R&D sector. Consequently, "one of the largest" could mean anything at all—assuming that it's even true. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if an editor creates an article which is then deleted as a copyvio, and the editor then re-creates an exact duplicate of the article, it shouldn't be put up for deletion as that would be harassment? Interesting POV, but not one I agree with. And if you have sources that say that this is a prominent company in Uzbekistan, please consider adding them to the article! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nu electro metal[edit]

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

A user-created "phantom music genre" which has no citations for verification and is completely built on the article creator's imagination and not on any referenced fact. Mr Pyles (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brave 10 Episodes[edit]

List of Brave 10 Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a tad overkill since only one episode has been shown Guerillero | My Talk 04:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faith-head[edit]

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

Dicdef. I would say "transwiki to Wiktionary" but I'm almost certain that Wiktionary wouldn't take it with these refs which are pretty sketchy. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wow, what a mess this AFD is. I want to assure everyone that I did read every last word here, that I gave appropriate weight to arguments not based on WP policy, and that it is as obvious to me as it is to everyone else that there was quite a bit of bad behavior here, including socking and canvassing. That being said, it appears that what was at one point a marginal case at best has nudged just over the top of the bar for notability. I am as loath as anyone to take any action that would seem to reward the various bad behaviors involved here, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Nouraei (rapper)[edit]

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

This rapper exists, but lacks sufficient substantial RS coverage. Article created by an apparent single-purpose account. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Spada's comments below as to them not being RSs ... any thoughts on that? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jigsaw. Welcome back to the project. That would be a good time for you (or any of us) to re-write or add to the article (which you can have userfied, if it is deleted), with substantial RS refs. But we don't generally to my knowledge treat as notable subjects or wp articles on the basis of editors having been commissioned to write such articles in the future. (Others are welcome to correct me if I am wrong on this point). Is that the sole rationale underlying your !vote?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for welcoming me, Epeefleche. The article about Bahram Nouraei was commissioned because the editor recognizes and acknowldeges Bahram's importance and influence as an artist. I have followed Bahram's work for nearly three years. I didn't write about him before out of fear of triggering more persecution. Rappers in Iran don't have it easy, you know. And Ettala'at keep close tabs on the internet, including Wikipedia.jigsawnovicht (talk) 6:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Jisaw. I believe you may have inadvertently !voted twice above. You may wish to cross one of the !votes out (while keeping the text, as I expect you meant to title it "Comment"), and indent it below my comment, which it responds to. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your suggestion, Epeefleche. I'm still acclimating to HTML and Wikipedia protocol. I'm sleep deprived. Working on the Bahram article for publication was very intense. His life is really interesting.jigsawnovicht (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Often having a vast enough following" is not what leads to a finding of notability on wp. Rather, the subject must meet wp's notability standards. Many of these authors and figures in Iran do -- see, for example, those reflected in Category:Iranian singers; this specific rapper does not seem to have the requisite substantial coverage in RSs, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair to the doctor's point, singers are not always deemed "west-struck" like rappers are. Bahram's "Letter to the President" is cited in Laudan Nooshin's excellent "Hip Hop Tehran"—See Iranian_hip_hop#Further_reading. My lack of Farsi, the multitudinous variations of transliterations of Farsi into English, and the name changes and different name forms of this rapper discourage me from searching, but i would not be quick to delete. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would not be quick to delete. However, given the absence of verifiable, substantial RS support for his notability (having looked for it), I believe a slow deletion is in order. The problem with the above !vote, and the reason it should not be weighed strongly in the close here, is that it is not wp-policy-based.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. I view his comments as a mix of informed comment and the important essay WP:BIAS. Guidelines like WP:MUSIC try to give likely indicators of notability based on western typicality. The point that sources are harder to come by here is well made. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We try harder to overcome any bias. But we don't suspend our notability guidelines, however. Or imagine -- without verifiability, a core policy being met -- that multiple substantial RS coverage exists in the absences of verifiable evidence of it. We still require that our verifiability policy and our notability guideline be met. Any !votes here that suggest otherwise aren't based in policy, IMHO. And of course an essay is just the view of one or more editors, and is not akin to a wp guideline or policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability, a core policy, concerns the contents of an article. Notability, the guideline, is a property of the subject. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:38, 29 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But see the comments by Farhikht, etc., re the non-RS nature of the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see them but they're just arguments by assertion... 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supported by the wp policy WP:SELFPUBLISH. Which states in part "self-published media, such as ... personal websites, ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources.... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. ...Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. It takes no farsi for that interpretation... 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the evidence that iranian.com has been used by Jigsawnovich to solicit !votes at wp AfDs such as -- and in fact including! -- this one, it is now beyond cavil that the site is not one wp should treat as a reliable source.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a brief (one sentence) mention in "The Music of the Children of Revolution: The state of music and emergence of the underground music in the Islamic Republic of Iran" [63] Sanam Zahir, The University of Arizona. Near Eastern Studies. So he keeps showing up in overviews of all underground music, here, or of all iranian hip hop, in Nooshin above. Has anyone checked R.C. Elling's "Zirzamin: Hip-Hop i den Islamiske Republik"? Or Sholeh Johnston? Have our Persian colleagues checked Haft Sang and anthropology.ir for all instances of "Bahram"? And so on. He is extremely difficult to search for, in a field where there is good reason for sources to be scarce, and where editors have little expertise, and yet we have quite a lot indicating notability. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The AfD for this singer's album "Sokout" was just closed as a Delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a video, in which one appeared, be included in a broadcast segment does not make one notable. Many, many non-notable people appear in segments of broadcasts on television.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Footage of Bahram Nouraei performing was broadcast by the BBC. And it would be premature to delete this article before we find out whether in fact the feature article about Bahram Nouraei, in a magazine that meets the Wikipedia guidelines for RS, is indeed published within another week as claimed by a commenter above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BacheMosbat talk(talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that Namei be Raees Jomhoor is a notable composition, as wp uses the term "notable".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Altogether, this is not a notable person according to Wikipedia policy. ●Mehran Debate● 08:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without accepting your analysis, to only analyze sources currently in the article is a failure of WP:N. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This editor, who understands Farsi, has done us the service of sharing his analysis of the refs, which have been relied on in some of the !keep rationales. I'm not certain why one would accuse him of a "failure". He has done precisely the correct thing, and we should all thank him for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple epee. Notability isn't a property of an article, in any version. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mashkouri is mentioned at least six times in The Music of the Children of Revolution and at least once in "Hip Hop Tehran". A google books search for "zirzamin.se", which i recall reading he used to edit, and in which his Bahram review also appeared, returns 5 results, one of them Young and Defiant in Tehran, University of Pennsylvania Press, again citing "the editor" (probably Mashkouri; the preview does not extend to the notes). Perhaps Persian isn't everything when it comes to evaluating sources. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we never rely on Google results in AfD. I'll be oppose of deleting the article if only I see it's notable. Your statements is not acceptable about Mashkouri, the Persian reference used in the article is obviously unreliable, you can ask it in WP:RSN to be sure. Wikipedia policies/guidelines are clear enough, please show us how did you deduce that he's notable? (Under which criteria?) ●Mehran Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mehran. I'm referring to specific sources, but also telling you how to see them and others. I accept that you would oppose deletion if you agreed that he was notable. I must reply to your question, which I thank you for, at some length.
Please review the video at the bottom of this page[68], which is from VOA. (Epee, this is perhaps instructive for non-farsi peeps also.) Mashkouri appears as an expert on Persian hip hop; he is introduced at 13:33. At 18:15 they discuss zirzamin.se. At 19:50 Bahram appears. At 25:30 is Erfan + Bahram's "Ino BeFahm". Mashkouri's segment ends at 43:06.
In addition to VOA, The Music of the Children of Revolution, "Hip Hop Tehran", etc. as detailed above, Mashkouri is relied upon in Sholeh Johnston's paper "Persian Rap" for the Journal of Persianate Studies Volume 1, Number 1, 2008. (You can verify this by searching his name on Google Scholar).
So, I deduce that Bahram is notable in the following wise:
  • 1a) Mashkouri is an expert in the field (I view this as undisputable) and his review is therefore acceptable as an RS per WP:SELFPUBLISH
  • 1b) His review was also published in zirzamin.se which is so widely cited in high-quality sources (i'll give specific sources on request, or come back to it later) that it is at least approaching an RS.
Perhaps the VOA footage qualifies as significant coverage of Bahram (I can't really judge) in which case WP:BAND 1, is already met. This is basically the GNG which is all i really care about when it comes to notability.
  • 2) I view the citation of Bahram's address to Ahmadinejad "Letter to the President" in Nooshin's scholarly overview of all Persian hip hop ("Hip Hop Tehran", Migrating Music, ed. Toynbee, Dueck, Routledge, 2011)—in which Nooshin links the track to Tupac's track of the same name and uses it to suggest the influence of the Western gangsta rap paradigm—as significant. Again this means criteria 1 is met.
  • 3)There are other non-trivial but non-lengthy mentions in RSs, and indications of notability such as the Danish(?) TV footage below.
  • 4) WP:BIAS is an excellent reason not to demand a Rolling Stone cover story in this case.
  • 4b) There are good reasons further sources are hard to come by, including the disapproval of Iranian authorities, named potential sources going unchecked, the lack of expertise of us as editors to know of others, and "Bahram", this rapper's WP:COMMONNAME, being a zooastrian god, six ancient kings, the Persian for Mars, and a common name. :) 86.44.40.73 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you my friend about your answers you gave. I try to answer step by step:
  • So you want to prove that Mashkouri is a notable person and then deduce Bahram could be notable too, it's not a correct way to show the notability of a person.
  • I don't accept your reasons about Mashkouri's notability (You can create an article for him if you think he's notable, but it certainly will be deleted)
  • even if we suppose Mashkouri is notable, nothing will be changed, it would be a kind of invalid criteria.
  • With ignoring Mashkouri's notability, the reference used in article ([69]) never can be reliable. Zirzamin.se has the same condition (It's a little promotional and it's like much more like a weblog than a reliable source).
  • It's not good to refer to video resources as a RS to show notability. Before using any videos, we should can find "published" sources. In your way, you a little approached to WP:NOR. Contents should be clear enough to deduce them anything we want, not like this case, we have to discuss a long page about them just to show that someone could be notable or not! ●Mehran Debate● 12:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're completely mistaken on pretty much all counts. In short:
  • VOA "published" its report -- there's no distinction between this report and those in newspapers . It's a WP:RS.
  • See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Either he is an expert in the field or not.
  • You have ignored everything else, and you misunderstand almost every policy and guideline you refer to. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; Sock Block: Persian Clique has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first lacks substantial RS coverage and in any event does not in itself make one notable -- many people have been arrested. And as to the second, different wikis have different notability guidelines (and they are not always immediately enforced), so existence on another wiki does not mean that a subject is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want you to read WP:BLP1E. ●Mehran Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This doesn't pass wp:v and wp:rs, and Youtube is generally not an RS in and of itself -- certainly not material posted by other than the copyright holder.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no one on Earth can verify the source? You have checked with everybody? Hahaha! Of course as posted it doesn't pass V and RS, good heavens. Until tracked to its source, it is merely a possible indication of further notability. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm answering for myself. Thought that might be obvious.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's not necessary for anyone else who reads the query and can't shed light on this to answer in the negative. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. Now you appear -- a newly created SPA -- claiming knowledge of the same unpublished article that Jigsaw (a confirmed sockmaster) claims to have written, but not yet had published.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not comport with wp:v and wp:crystal. The opposite would comport with wp:v -- deleting, per the above (ignoring the sock !votes and relying on policy-based !votes), with leave to re-create if substantial RS coverage appears. I see no reason to rely on the statements of socks. There is no existing Rolling Stone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found the Rolling Stone article. And the footnote says "To read the full story, pick up a copy of Rolling Stone Middle East, available at over 200 outlets in the UAE and GCC". Cavarrone (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the source, that remains significant and very reliable. Are you arguing that, as the journalist was a bad WP user, "Rolling Stone Magazine" has now become a unreliable source? Probably the more appropriate process for this article would have been a deletion a couple of weeks ago and a recreation in these days, but, since we are here, you should accept the validity of the source, even if you don't like the journalist (with reasons).Cavarrone (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppetry was a stupid error and now Wikipedia has lost a talented editor, that's my take on JA/Jigsawnovich. But there is a substantial web footprint for this guy, I state again, combined with the big Rolling Stone spread, combined with the fact that art seems to have crossed into politics in this instance which makes this an even bigger public figure... So it's a tragedy for WP and a Keep for the piece both, in my view. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of RS presumes that there is something we can deem reliable; an article that is reliable. Usually, a piece in Rolling Stone would qualify without question. This is different.
Here, the piece that Rolling Stone carried was written by someone we know without question is completely unreliable. She demonstrated that in various ways. She broke wp's rules by being a sockmaster. She socked at this very AfD. She extended the term of this Afd through a rule-bending 4th week through 1 sockpuppet. She used another sockpuppet to !vote multiple times at this AfD. She canvassed for people to !vote in support of her position at wp AfDs by posting off-wiki on the blog iranian.com. And then she duplicitously sought to convince us here that iranian.com -- the very blog she was pushing her agenda through, with no apparent or effective oversight -- was a Reliable Source! She bragged on her own site that her PR work includes writing wp articles on people for purposes of "publicizing", how many unsuspecting sites had in turn spread a wp bio she created, and how many views that bio received. She posted about--and linked to--this very AfD on iranian.com. And this AfD has been littered with !votes and actions and comments of her sockpuppets and meatpuppets. At last count, I believe she and 4 other puppets have been blocked indef as a result of this web. The article she wrote, which Rolling Stone printed, therefore falls at best into the category of what wp:RS refers to as "Questionable sources". Reliable? Not a chance.
At times, a presumptive-RS has a non-reliable person feed them the news. This contribution to Reuters is just one of many examples. We would not rely on the contributor there, who we know to be unreliable, just because they have a photo in an RS. The same with contributions by known-unreliable-editor Stephen Glass, even though writing in The New Republic. Similarly, we know this writer to be unreliable, and her article is therefore not an RS piece.
Furthermore, as stated above, the other "support" consists of blogs and other non-RS coverage, including by iranian.com -- the very site she used to encourage editors to !vote in support of her at AfDs. Losing her and her sockpuppets and meatpuppets is no loss for wp, btw. Unless you really believe that losing a person who engages in this sort of rampant, duplicitous, self-serving behavior to promote their own personal PR business is a loss for the project. I don't.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, being a bad WP user does not mean automatically being a bad journalist or a bad person. She was blocked as she broke other (important) rules, not because what she wrote was "unreliable" (on the contrary, she wrote that an article about the subject would be published by RS this mouth and it was true). Rolling Stone Magazine clearly has a strong editorial oversight and surely checks the facts before publishing an article online & on paper, it could not be considered a questionable source. The fact that Reuters had in the past a non-reliable journalist is an OTHERSTUFF argument that has nothing to do with the actual case, unless you want to consider ALL the sources as questionable sources. If you have a proof that Julie Ashcraft is an unreliable journastist who manipulates news and informations in her articles, or a proof that Rolling Stone Magazine has no editorial oversight or intentionally distorts the news, please show us evidence of that, and we all will change our votes. Cavarrone (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Selena Gomez & the Scene. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Clement[edit]

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

There's not a single reliably sourced fact in this article that actually pertains to Joey Clement. I can't find anything that actually talks about Joey Clement that isn't a fan site or a Wikipedia mirror. —Kww(talk) 02:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 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, SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deleting all... Wifione Message 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Fighting Championship 1[edit]

Cage Fighting Championship 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article. The only coverage I can find of this event is the standard fight results tables. Event appears to fail WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (unsourced, no coverage other than the usual fight results and some online videos):

Cage Fighting Championship 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Fighting Championship 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Fighting Championship 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Fighting Championship 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Fighting Championship 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--TreyGeek (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so since these articles don't have any sources apart from Sherdog (which I have not linked to, I know) and the promotions website (which I have linked to where possible and also includes press releases via the link), they don't belong on Wikipedia? -- Manwithaduck (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an article to "belong on Wikipedia" the article's subject should be notable. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines says that a subject is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I could find very little in the way of significant coverage of these events. The coverage I could find consisted almost entirely of routine fight results and some videos. The articles themselves cite no sources independent of Cage Fighting Championship. This lack of coverage suggests, to me, that these events are not notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one else has voted or commented yet, I added the article on an upcoming event (#20) to the list. I would also point out that the article for the organization is completely unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per WP:G3 Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

133 South Street St. Andrews Scotland[edit]

133 South Street St. Andrews Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Building with no evidence of notability; no references. Prod contested without explanation, possible hoax.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Bangalore plane crash[edit]

2007 Bangalore plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable crash doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. Private plane, nobody notable on board. William 02:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart University Men's Rugby Football Club[edit]

Sacred Heart University Men's Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college sports club. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RU/N and a search for third party sources [71] doesn't give any indication of meeting WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 29 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) 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Team play in low-level amateur competition. Not notable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Conan O'Brien. I'll keep the merge request open for a week, then redirect this article if the merge issue hasn't been resolved till then. Any other requests, please direct to my talk page. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conan vs. bear[edit]

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

AfD'ed before with "no consensus therefore keep" but as the years tick by it seems to continue to fail WP:WEBPAGE. See old AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan vs. bear Ifnord (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 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) 01:25, 22 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, SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminations Media[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 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) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wishes to merge to Sara Lee Corporation, request me for the deleted content on my talk page please. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returnship[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, used by a single company as a sort of "brand" of mid-career internship. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 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) 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Junior Football Championship[edit]

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

This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Tagged for zero refs for over 3 years. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 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) 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship[edit]

2001 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 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) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalampadan[edit]

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

Zero refs, zero RS gnews hits, zero RS gbooks hits. Non-notable. Tagged for notability and lack of refs since 2010. Created by a 1-article-edited-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 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) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Mill (cocktail)[edit]

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

This drink -- supposedly created in Nevis in 2009 -- may well be an excellent one. But this not only smell like OR, I cannot find substantial, independent, RS coverage of it and its invention. Tagged for zero refs and for notability since the year of its supposed invention. Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 23 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) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Materials science. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digital materials[edit]

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

Trademarked non-notable neologism. Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article appears to be a coatrack to promote one particular manufacturer's method of 3D printing. Although well cited and backed up with reliable sources, the sources that are not specifically published by Objet Geometries appear to be more generic articles on the science of composite materials, and not about this specific technology. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:37, 29 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) 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is superficially impressive, but no real substance to claims of notability. Lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources. The Objet Geometries article needs looking at as well, the only independent "source" in that article is a 404 for me and is therefore officially "dodgy". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, that "somewhere" is hard to define, as Wikipedia's coverage of 3D printing and related technologies is already somewhat scattershot (see rapid prototyping, stereolithography, additive manufacturing, etc). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why I think the best merge target in these cases is the most generic topic. Some of the other 3D printing-related articles may also be good merge candidates - at least until they have more sources. §everal⇒|Times 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rai RehamatKhan Bhatti[edit]

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

Even allowing for the weird redirect from Rai Rehamat Khan Bhatti to a mispelled article title, I can find nothing relating to this person. Maybe there are still more alternate spellings, but on the face of it the guy is not notable. Sitush (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 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) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More