< 16 January	18 January >

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax per WP:CSD#G3. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoville, Maine[edit]

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

Unremarkable place (If exists) It's not on google maps, and with a population of 5, it's too small to be remarkable. Dengero (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baucalis[edit]

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

Article adds no substantial information beyond what is available on Arius, and the bulk of the very short article is actually about Arius, not Baucalis. Propose Merge with Arius ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that currently it doesn't have any new substantive information in it, but that doesn't mean that it won't sooner or later. It doesn't matter that much to me if it's deleted, merged, or remains. I only created it because there was no real info anywhere for that region in Alexandria, and I thought that there probably should be. Not sure why you feel the need to have it deleted, just because AT PRESENT it adds no real substantive new info.

But as I said, it's no big deal either way to me. I just did it because there's no link for that section in Egypt, when most sections in Egypt have a wiki article. That was all. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use your sandbox to develop articles... right now it's an article about Arius called Baucalis... that is confusing and causes people researching to spend time somewhere that doesn't help them. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But if you notice in the edit comment for that article, I clearly said "under construction". Meaning it obviously was not finished yet. I was looking for some more info on the city or region itself, not so much on Arius and Alexander. But from what I saw, there's not so much data on that place. That I found so far. Hence why I said that this can go either way for me. Because I concede the point, and knew it from the beginning. My only point here is that it was not finished, and not everything has to be "sandbox". But even so, I agree that the article should deal more with the region itself, geography, history, formation, rather than so much on Alexander or Arius. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Merge to Arius. At presetn the article is all about him, but I am willing to rescind that judgment if something else caqn be said about the place. Perhaps Userify pending the article being completed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books and Scholar results linked by the nomination procedure provide ample evidence that this was a notable district of Alexandria. The whole point of the "Wiki-" in "Wikipedia" is that articles are developed collaboratively in main space, not by individual editors in a sandbox. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the article, but at this point the article is not about Baucalis, it is about Arius. It needs to be improved, quickly, or it should be merged. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notability of Baucalis (alternatively spelled as Boukolou or Baukalis) extends beyond its association with Arius. For example, here's a quote from Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (pg. 263): "The church at Baucalis appears to have been adjacent to the martyrium of Saint Mark, since all the recensions of Marks passion place his execution and eventual burial at a site known as Boukolou" (see also here). At any rate, Google Books searches on Baucalis / Boukolou / Baukalis yield multiple WP:RS with significant coverage. I would also note that while the article definitely needs improvement, these are surmountable problems that good editing can resolve and are not a sufficient reason to delete an article with potential. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Mike Agricola, that the site is notable by itself as being the location of the Martyrium of St. Mark: "By the mid-fourth century his martyrium was a place of pilgrimage (located at Boukolou beside the sea in the eastern part of the city)."[1] from The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt C. 300 BC to Ad 700, Yale University Press. First Light (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the site where later Patriarchs of Alexandria were elected. I've added this and the St. Mark connection to the article, with an additional reference to St. Mark's martyrdom there from the writings of Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. First Light (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore tuning[edit]

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

No citations. No claim to notability. The only book source found via Google was a copy of this article.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (could be redirected to Guitar tunings I suppose; the title gets about 40-50 views per day) - I couldn't find anything to suggest this isn't original research. Stalwart111 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notabilty etc. I was the one that removed the speedy tag and requested Afd instead. This may prevent others from saying they didn't have a chance to defend the article. Can any of the material be used in a guitar tuning article or is it just OR?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-laughable OR has been dumped at the list of guitar tunings. Guitar tunings is getting to be a respectable article, which has been recently trimmed of undue weight on regular tunings (my precious). There are no citations for this "article", and I found none on google books.I have not checked Google Scholar or a more populist engine (e.g. Highbeam), because this article is so trivial and has negligible marginal content. We already have mentioned down-tuning strings, and readers have complained about the brain-dead list of such tunings, already. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashayer Kohgiluyeh F.C.[edit]

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

Part of a large series of unreferenced micro-stubs about football teams in Iran which have not received significant coverage or played at a national level in order to meet notability guidelines. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C.. This nomination covers a total of five articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C 679 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Four related articles listed below per nomination:[reply]

C 679 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. C 679 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Unreferenced, uninformative and they fail to meet the minimum sports-related inclusion guidelines. - Mr X 22:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of any notability. Giant Snowman 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all low level Iranian football have no idea how much there is, seems to fail WP:FOOTY. Govvy (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhund Abbasi[edit]

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

Unsourced article with big neutrality and accuracy issues, started by a sockpuppeteer and now often edited by suspected sock-IPs in the 182.188-range. The Banner talk 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support without a reference this is going nowhere except to waste our time Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unreferenced and too mant tags. Zia Khan 17:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is ok u should not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.204 (talk)
- Even so, mr. Molvi, you should come up with real arguments, not removing the AfD-template time and time again. The Banner talk 15:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Clement[edit]

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

I originally PRODded this, but removed it when I realised the creator had been blocked for 1 week, and it was patently unfair. He is now unblocked and willing to do some good, which is always nice to see, but I still believe this player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what, why don't you delete it! It took me an hour to make but I understand I can't say much to contest it. That is why as you may have seen I am trying to get admins on my side to get change these guidelines to allow less known footballers and less notable teams to STAY on Wikipedia and NOT get deleted. Hopefully, in the near future, Jordan Clement will be back on Wikipedia in no time at all.Boomage (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Conference South fully professional? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, in fact I'm not sure there is even a single full-time professional team in that division -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a minor league player who failed even to pay for his own club! Not clear if he was sacked or resigned. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost certainly neither, he simply didn't have his contract renewed when it came up for renewal because he didn't feature in the current manager's plans...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as A7. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Vaswani[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Article doesn't make clear what he is notable for, and Google search seemed to show a nn businessman. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I tagged it with A7 CSD. No claim of significance, and certainly not notable per WP:BIO. - Mr X 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cheeseman[edit]

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:NRU#Rugby_union - no evidence that he has actually played for either team in a qualifying tournament - Youreallycan 20:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Youreallycan 20:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep - Meets the minimum inclusion requirements and hass sufficient news coverage. Mr X 23:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Alex Cheesman. Looks like a spelling mistake. Plenty of google news hits for Cheesman [2]. AIRcorn (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per the above - noted on the Cornish Pirates website [3], amongst others, under the correct spelling with no third "e". --Bcp67 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have moved the article to the correct name and changed my !vote accordingly. - Mr X 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foxfire Botanical Gardens[edit]

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

1. fails WP:GN 2. no sources, quick search did not find any WP:RS (separately philosophical gardens seems to not shed light on the topic) Widefox; talk 20:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per improvements. Good work. Feel free to speedykeep. Widefox; talk 10:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for "Foxfire Gardens" is more fruitful. Based on the 1992 Milwaukee Sentinel article ("Foxfire Gardens is cherished state secret") [4] and a number of travel guide references that come up at GBooks, these gardens appear to have been a notable tourist attraction in their day. They closed in 2009, but notability is not temporary, so I think we should keep this. I've added a few references.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per reasons Arxilios gave-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxilios and thanks for the work. Royal broil 00:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Sonberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unref blp. Went to AfD in 2011 - no consensus. I'm hoping we can establish a consensus this time, or delete as unref blps aren't allowed. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I've been able to access the book review of A Horse Named Paris mentioned in DGG's comment at the end of the 1st deletion discussion. It's only about five sentences, some of which is a plot summary, and in my opinion, doesn't represent significant coverage of the subject. Another review of The Health Nutrient Bible is only slightly more substantial. These reviews are in the School Library Journal and the Library Journal respectively. I'm not really convinced that these reviews support the notability guidelines for authors, and do not constitute very strong support for the general notability guideline, either. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see anything notable that clearly supports WP:AUTHOR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Braun Melsungen[edit]

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

Not notable. Notablity is not established TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google returns for [ "B Braun" -www.bbraun* ] [5] 115000 hits. --Ben Ben (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More specifically, the article does not establish why the company is notable. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For developed the first plastic container for I. V. solutions? The article is borderline to promotion, yes. At least, 41666 people in 50 countries know the company.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:GOOGLEHITS. The fact that 115000 hits return on Google does not indicate notability at all. Notability depends on the existence of reliable sources, not some 114950 pages scattered on the internet that mention "B Braun". Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assumed that a company like this - nearly 200 years old, with branches all over the world - would be notable. At first I could not find significant coverage in English about the company - mostly just press releases. But I think there may be significant coverage in the German press, for example this in the Frankfurter Rundschau, naming the company the best employer in Germany. I'll add it to the article. Other examples [6] [7]. The article could use some help from a German speaker. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The company does have an article in the German Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly notable. Braun products are ubiquitous in German healthcare (for example, the first word I learned for peripheral venous catheter was "Braunüle"), and while the article could certainly be improved, there is no reason for deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Amatulic. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Smiley[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Google search showed up a lawyer, but nothing on this man apart from IMDB, which shows he has had several roles in films where he has played characters such as 'zombie' or 'hardware clerk' - parts without names and thus presumably non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I A7 CSD'd it. Poorly referenced, no claim of significance and evidently non-notable per WP:BIO. - Mr X 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Churchvilla FC[edit]

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

PROD challenged by page creator as it is linked with the Cloyne page, but gives no indication why it is notable. Local sports team who play at an amateur level and have not generated sufficient independent coverage. C 679 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can put in more references from paper reports etc... if want more notable coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomh903 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
are you in favour or against deletion govvy? Tomh903 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fall short of WP:GNG, there are no gnews hits, the article on its parent league (Cork AUL) is only a stub with no table of clubs within it. Article relies entirely on self-published sources so doesn't meet WP:SPS. The creator could add some of this content to Cork AUL to strengthen that article if he wishes but only if it is properly externally referenced.—Baldy Bill (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinist Wild Men[edit]

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

About a derogatory term for the subject of an existing article (WP:Not a dictionary). Doesn't seem worth merging into that article. JFH (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is unreferenced (two refs don't mention the term & the third is a discussion thread hence unreliable): search yields nothing. Not even worth redirecting.TheLongTone (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. External links currently on article are not satisfactory for reliability. No news discussion of this idea nor any scholarly articles. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Brewer[edit]

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

A Councillor is a local government politician. Generally these are ten a penny. My local council has 40 of them. This council has 20 of them. Being a councillor is not, of itself, a notable item. This chap: "A total of 18,228 people voted for him – making him the fifth highest polling Auckland councillor" Well, that doesn't make him notable either. Even the one who came top isn't notable. This is far more like a "Find your local candidate on WIkipedia" effort than an article on a genuinely notable person. Fails notability. Fails as an election biography leaflet too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. gadfium 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Following the formation of the Auckland Council in 2011 we decided that the 20 councillors would meet notability per WP:POLITICIAN. I will raise this with WP:NZ as this will effect other articles as well. Certaintly no argument that this article needs improvement, but I think the size of the council, and the way it was formed, means the councillors are notable in their own right. Mattlore (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the policy you quote: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Nothing explains how this individual qualifies. He has no inherent notability. The others must stand or fall on their own merits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand. Local politicians may be "ten a penny," but elected members of governing local councils for major cities are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite policy. Who presumes them to be notable? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meets requirements.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't before, does now :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn article has been given a good set of references and COI puffery has been removed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Nigerian_films#2011. In view of the apparent sourcing difficulties, this seems to be the result acceptable to most participants. Sandstein 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nkwocha[edit]

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

article fails to establish notability for films. article fails WP:GNG and does not have any reliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be mindful of the fact that reliable source can be subjective. An example is that I have seen a lot of articles without reference, but yet published, Zack Orji, and so on. Let us use the same standard. I can agree that Nkwocha as a contribution is a stub; needs more info. Am not done yet. On its notabiIity, I am about to add an independent review of it, and the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fechu (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the messages left on your talk page concerning reliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage. ~~Keep in mind that whatever independent review you are going to cite, it needs to be by a nationally-known critic~~ by means of the notability guideline on films. Further, your going to need more than one of those reviews. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, and with respects, a review in a reliable source does not "have" to be from a "nationally-known" critic... itself a very subjective term. What IS required is that the source itself be determinable as reliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if a review is determined to be reliable, then it should be reasonable to assume that it is from a "nationally-known" critic. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, specially as "nationally known" to Iceland or Paraguay (for example) could still be totally unknown to the rest of the world. As the term is too subjective, its use at WP:NF#Other evidence of notability is not to mandate a "nationally known critic", but to indicate that if a such a critic (no matter his "nation") has taken notice, others may have as well. Further, source "reliability" may be determined through either the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, or the publisher of the work, or a combination. Opinions are not purported to be facts... simply opinions. See WP:RSOPINION. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if determinable as notable (even if only) to Nigeria. A caveat here is that the Nigerian film industry is one of the more difficult industries to source, specially as most Igbo language films rarely get coverage outside of Nigeria itself. This 2011 film may be seen in two parts on IrokoTV.com and is discussed in Nigerian media of indeterminate reliability. IE: Nollywood Reinvented. Sadly, Wikipedia's coverage of Nigerian film is woefully lacking. However, a Redirect to List of Nigerian films#2011 is a valid consideration, as the thing is sourcable as having received 4 'Nollywood Movie Awards' nominations (no wins)... one for 'Best Movie in an Indigenous Language', one for Queen Nwokoye as 'Best Actress in a Leading Role in an Indigenous Language Movie', and one for Chiwetalu Agu as 'Best Actor in a Leading Role in an Indigenous Language Movie', and one for Junior Pope Odumodoh as'Best Male Actor in a Supporting Role'.[8] [9] [10][11][12], etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely disappointing that the information about this particular film cannot be presented to the English-language. However, the point of notability, in my opinion, is to establish that an article bigger than a stub can be created and verified through reliable sourcing. The article should also cover all viewpoints to remain neutral. If such sourcing can't be found, the subject just can't be written about confidently. I'll continue to look for more reviews throughout the week, and I support the redirect option. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. The English Wikipedia is not to be about English-only topics, but is simply an English-language presentation of topics no matter where they originated. And too, stubby articles are acceptable, even if we only have a faint hope that they might be expandable.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by reliable sources. If no reliable source is available, the article cannot remain in Wikipedia. It's that simple. Claiming that "the Nigerian film industry is one of the more difficult industries to source" within an AfD with the motive of keeping an article for which there are no reliable sources, appears to be an attempt trying to introduce a different set of Notability Rules for articles relating to Nigeria. In the last couple of years the amount of available reliable sources on the internet by notable Nigerian news agencies has enormously increased. Every major and minor newspaper and print magazine in Nigeria is placing their articles on their websites. For the major part of notable Nollywood movies there are scores of reliable sources available from Nigerian notable websites. None of the Nigerian film critics and journalists have (yet) written about the film in question, and as such there are no reliable sources available. A redirect to the List of Nigerian Films article can only happen, if the article has reliable sources. Wikipedia's Manual of Style Guideline for Lists stipulates, that "Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say". Since there are no reliable sources available, a redirect of this article does not adhere to Wikipedia's manual of style guideline. Anything else is original research. The notabilty criteria for films are very clear, and this film article does not fulfill any of them.

Lastly, the list of sources provided by editor Schmidt are all unreliable or primary (with the exception of the Daily Times of Nigeria). Sites like nollywoodreinvented, ghanamma and nairaland (which is an internet forum board) are unreliable, because they do not fulfill the requirements found in WP:RS and WP:SOURCES (e.g. having editorial oversight (=having an editorial board), fact checking etc). Amsaim (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has widely been accepted that the mere existence of a film can be sourced to the film itself. Notability is a different issue. My "weak keep" included the caveat "if determinable as notable even if only to Nigeria" and acknowledged that a redirect was a viable option that served our readers. If you wish to nominate List of Nigerian films for deletion, a far more insightful discussion could be had there, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, are you suggesting above that Daily Times of Nigeria, included at List of newspapers in Nigeria and being used above (with yes, the poorer sources) to show this 2011 Nigerian film received award nominations,[13] is not to be considered RS? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Certainly, the Daily Times of Nigeria is a reliable source. I had already pointed out that Nigerian news agencies (which includes the Daily Times) are reliable sources, yet in the proceeding paragraph I wrongly defined all of your sources are unreliable. Now, concerning the List of Nigerian films, I have no clue why you come up with the idea that I want this List to be deleted? I've not written or suggested anything like that. Plus, in this Afd, as in any other Afd, editors are looking at whether this particular film is or is not notable to merit its own article, or to merit a redirect. Both issues are about notability, and notability is proven by reliable sources. Receiving nominations for an award is not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria for films. Amsaim (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up,[14] and I apologize for my inferrence that you felt the List of Nigerian films was improper. Toward this article, a closer will note that my "weak keep" was provisional. The Nollywood Movie Awards are brand new,[15] and although no one has yet written an article on them, more sourcing may yet become available for both topics. The film being discussed here does have at least one reliable source reporting on it as having received nominations, and a redirect is a viable option (offered far above) that I would support if other sources are not forthcoming, and an option that saves the article history for the event that sources come forward and this film topic can be resurrected. Would you support a redirect? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support a redirect. WP:REDIRECT does not cover the case of redirecting a film article (for which no reliable sources are available) to a List-of article. The article in the Daily Times merely lists the award nominees and winners. It does not report on the film itself. That's not significant coverage required by WP:NFILMS. Keeping or redirecting this article the way it is now (with no reliable sources available) does not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. WP:PRESERVE contains 3 requirements, including Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability, which is not available for this film article. Amsaim (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, with respects I must disagree with your contentions. Editing policy gives us ways to preserve appropriate content... and in the list of possible options, specifically states "instead of deleting text, consider... merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge". A merge and redirect of this stub to the list article serves the reader and the project specifically in this instance by sending readers to the one place where, even if currently failing WP:NF, we can verify in a reliable source that this film received multiple nominations. And a redirect to a sourced list entry does not violate core policy WP:V, which is met in that a reliable source at the target shares that this Nigerian film exists and has received nominations. Preserving the article's history causes no mainspace issues, and if eventually shown as meeting WP:NF (even if only to Nigeria) , I would be quite happy to later undelete this and add such sources. The redirect would also tend to curtail someone else writing this article anew if unaware of this discussion. Newbs do that... and even some editors with a but more experience. It is not too far-fetched to imagine that someone might find THIS, be interested enough and have access to hardcopy sources unavailable online, and then wish the article refunded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a non-notable entry or a redirect into a Stand-Alone-List does not adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline for Stand-alone lists. Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and content policies. Every entry in a stand-alone list must be notable. If the entry is not notable, it has no place in the stand-alone list. The film in question is not notable, therefore it cannot be added via merge & redirect to a stand-alone list such as List of Nigerian films. The attempt to use WP:PRESERVE to save a non-notable article from deletion by redirecting the article to a stand-alone list, will in the long run result in Wikipedia becoming an indiscriminate list. Amsaim (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toward a film being included if not yet seen as meriting an indivudual article: " Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". I believe it is reasonable (as explained above) that non-English (Igbo) non-online sources are available for a film receiving multiple nominations. That someone started an article on a multi-nominated film without first procurring the requisite sources showing individual notability is sad, certainly, but is allowed if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. To encourage a more complete future article, redirects are cheap. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited provision is about red-linked entries that do not have articles. A redirect is not a red-linked entry. The issue in this Afd is not about a red-linked entry, it is about a film article which fails notability for films. Creating a redirect to a stand-alone list is not permitted by Wikipedia's manual of style for stand-alone lists.

The Nigerian Cinema industry produces thousands of films every year, and the majority of these remain ignored by the bulk of Nigerian film buffs, critics and Nigerian journalists. Even some films from top Nollywood actresses / actors are not given enough journalistic professional attention in the form of a film review. If Nigerian journalists were to write a review for every film released in Nigeria, they'd spend most of their time doing only that. Take for instance the english-language film Baby Police which was released 10 (ten) years ago in 2003. This films starrs Osita Iheme, one of Nollywoods' top actors. After 10 years there are still no reliable sources available for that film. In 2010 the Baby Police article was taken to AfD and subsequently deleted. In April 2012 a new editor re-created the deleted Baby Police article, again without any reliable sources. The igbo-language film Nkwocha was released in Nigeria sometime in 2011. It's now January 2013, and there are still no reliable sources availble for that film to establish notability. It is therefore not reasonable to expect that reliable sources will be available in the near future. A good precedent to support this is the Baby Police film as mentioned above. Amsaim (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your example of an instance where a film starring a Nollywod top artist has gotten no write-ups does seem to underscore the difficulty I wrote of up above in that not all things sourcable have ongoing or online coverage. Again, and in acknowledging that some other film did not, at least Nkwocha is verifiable in a reliable source to have received multiple award nominations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. LK (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Nigerian films#2003. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Police[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

article fails to establish notability for films. article fails WP:GNG and does not have any reliable sources. article was deleted via Afd in 2010. Amsaim (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and fails WP:NFILM. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-English sources are found. Detailed Google News searches found nothing but this could be due to the country and language barriers, the best thing I could find was this (provides a little review about the film). The "Keep" at the first nomination said they improved the article a little by adding references but I don't have the ability to view the deleted version so I couldn't say how good the improvement was. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again and redirect title to List of Nigerian films#2003. Sourcing difficulties is an ongoing issue with Nollywood flms. At least Nkwocha has some sourcing available... but just as when this was deleted through AFD in 2010, Baby Police remains unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator per Mark viking's comment.

ICEfaces[edit]

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

Article lacks third-party sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I thought it might have one, but this is not a third-party source, as the author of that article, Stephen Maryka, is the CTO of ICEsoft Technologies. Sudo Ghost 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:SOFIXIT This, along with RichFaces, are probably the two major JSF stacks in recent use. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT has nothing to do with notability and does not explain why the article should be kept, and "probably a major JSF stack" boils down to WP:VALINFO; that has to established through reliable sources. - Sudo Ghost 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then JFGI and do some research. Here's a starter, the general newbie coder comparison page for Ice, Rich & Prime [16]. Are you a Java developer? If so, you ought to know about JSF. If not, then what the hell are you doing trying to delete articles where you don't understand the basic background? How's that supposed to work? This is a crappy article. See talk: for some years now. However we make progress incrementally, not by claiming something should be deleted, just because one editor personally doesn't understand it. If you want better articles, then work on making articles better, rather than throwing away what we do have so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is a difference between article issues that do not warrant deletion, and notability issues that do. You're again arguing about the former, and that has nothing to do with why this article was sent to AfD, so WP:IMPERFECT is as inappropriate to cite as WP:SOFIXIT, neither apply here. The article must be able to show notability; if only "Java developers can understand it" then there is a critical issue with the article, and that usually indicates that it isn't as notable as you think. If you want the article to be kept then fix it yourself; that works both ways and that burden is on you, if you are unable or unwilling to do so, do not ask others to do it for you. As it stands, this topic has not been shown to be notable, and does not warrant an article on Wikipedia.

Please also see WP:NPA; using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is not allowed. It doesn't matter if I am "a Java developer" or not, if this article cannot show notability then it does not belong on Wikipedia, and resorting to attacking others will not change that. I am well aware of what JavaServer Faces is, but that doesn't mean that any and every open source implementation of it is somehow notable without actually showing notability, without third-party sources, the article does not belong on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter how crappy the article is or how much or how little I understand the subject, those do not factor into an AfD discussion in any way. - Sudo Ghost 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Participating in AfD can be frustrating at times, but I agree that we should keep the discussion civil, per WP:CIVIL. Sources I found:

There is a book devoted to Icefaces, Icefaces 1.8: Next Generation Enterprise Web Development from Packt Publishing, a reputable publisher in the computer software field and from an author who doesn't seem to work for the company.
Iceface was one of two frameworks used in a study of accessability.
Icefaces merits a chapter in the book Jsf 1.2 Components The author of the chapter works for the company, but the book is a comparative study of different frameworks, so I consider this a reliable, peer-reviewed source.
A news article on integration of Icefaces with Netbeans from the http://sun.systemnews.com/ news site.
This was also reported on the [17] site, a reputable publisher.
Icefaces has its own tag at stackoverflow.
There is a tutorial on using Icefaces at Oracle, keeper of Java.

Except for sources 3 and 6, these are all reliable, secondary, independent, in depth, sources; source 3 is primary but peer-reviewed and I consider it reliable. Multiple reliable secondary sources indicate that this topic is notable and it is reasonable to keep the the article. Mark viking (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted on 17:09, January 17, 2013 by User:Jimfbleak under the CSD criterion A7. They forgot to close the AfD. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Knotz[edit]

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

I am nominating this for AFD because this biography of a living person and obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. It was deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) via a previous unconstested proposed deletion for these same concerns back in April 2012. I could not find any reliable sources to verify the notability of this person. A search engine test does not show significant coverage for this person beyond descriptions at conventions and a few articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surbhi Tiwari[edit]

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

This subject of this article, written almost exclusively by a prodigious sock farm, probably fails WP:ENT. There are three references: the first describes itself as "an entertainment/lifestyle forum and a social network" as so cannot be a reliable source. The second is a primary source (the subject's own LinkedIn profile). The third is a celebrity gossip article. Notability/reference cleanup tags have been languishing since June 2012. Psychonaut (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ENT. Did not have prominent roles in multiple television shows. Not prominent in Indian television industry.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't pass wp:ent (roles in multiple television shows). Forgot to put name 15:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 15:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 15:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 15:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fraud case Umar1996 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car when article had a slightly different name. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as patent nonsense (isn't that a CSD G1?) about a perpetual motion machine that both runs on water by electrolysis, and constantly supplies water wherever needed. Err, think about it for a millisecond. The laws of thermodynamics don't allow it. Doesn't much matter what references are provided in such a situation, it's still nonsense. Delete, really quickly please. And salt against any recurrence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---(striking as per consensus below) Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter that Waqar's ideas are nonsense, the article (not his idea) has reliable sources. Wikipedia can still cover fringe theories, hoaxes, perpetual motion machines, and other nonsense as long as they have had a significant impact and received skeptical press coverage. The serious attention given by the Pakistani government shows this had real impact, despite being nonsense. Nobody has offered a policy-based reason for deletion. WP:FRINGE is the relevant notability guideline, and it is met. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we carry articles about hoaxes *as hoaxes*, when, as here, they have significant coverage in reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep per previous AfD and Colapeninsula. The existence of RS coverage on any subject is enough for notability, even if it's about a hoax. Quoting User:Hobit from the previous AfD, "Notable hoaxes are notable." Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if we're to keep it (sound of teeth being gritted) it needs some serious editing to say "hoax, dross, nonscience" pretty clearly throughout. At the moment there are chunks which seem to be "in world" to use a game metaphor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Keep and Cleanup. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely reported scam. Article could use some work, but makes status as hoax clear.TheLongTone (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Zia Khan 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable hoax and improve. May be rename it to Agha Waqar's Water-Kit instead of Agha Waqar's water fueled car to keep it coherent. He is still talked about in Pakistani media from time to time and invited by naive media hosts to explain himself. For his supporters, the jury is still out on his perpetual motion machine; and they are awaiting for him to come up with a commercial version of the kit, which he promised to deliver a few months ago. He claims he can deliver his product in 3 months time. I am not holding my breath. Anaverageguy (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In its present form the article does not make it clear that the whole idea is completely impossible. The fact that the "inventor" had three meetings with ministers indicates that they took this perpetual motion machine seriously. I suppose that measn that it needs an article, but in its present form it is far too credulously accepting of something contrary to the laws of physics. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Box Podcast[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this podcast aside from a sole mention in some awards whose notability is questionable itself. PROD contested by adding a bunch of self-published sources. Some Wikipedians might be dissuaded from deletion because of this, but not me, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability and is referenced almost entirely by personal blogs. - Mr X 16:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:GNG for the lack of reliable independent sources since a good faith search yielded no such result. We should note that while WP:WEBCRIT states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.", and this podcast did win such an award, it also states "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline (WP:WEBCRIT) or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves.". Thus, sadly it also fails to meet WP:WEB. Nimuaq (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. It appears to have won an award, but there appears to be little coverage about it winning that award. At this point, It's unlikely to ever expand. Unless someone else finds any reliable coverage, then I can't see how this is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aspin[edit]

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

Contested PROD - original rationale of "Can't see any evidence that he has played in a professional league in order to pass WP:NFOOTY" fairly removed with edit summary of "I can't see any evidence either, but the infobox asserts appearances for Nakhon Pathom in 2009, which if genuine would have been in the fully pro Thai Premier League." The fact that there is no evidence is vital - this article confirms that the player had "a brief spell in Thailand with Nahon Pathom" - but that does not confirm any actual appearances, and therefore there is no evidence this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, this player fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this source briefly mentions that Aspin played in the Thai Premier League, but it's not exactly solid proof. Apart from a few forum posts, I can't find anything that would indicate notability. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL although the article seem well sourced I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons for which I originally PRODed the article. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- His top achievement is far too far donw the ranks in English fooball to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of NanoScience and Nanotechnology[edit]

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

Article dePRODded by creator. PROD reason was "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals". Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. There is nothing that indicates this journal merits inclusion per WP:GNG or WP:NJ. It consists of one page on a web site and there is nothing to indicate that submitting an article to this journal would really have an impact on its covered disciplines. Also, interestingly, this journal does not appear to be listed on World Cat. Now that is lacking any kind of sourcing, nevermind reliable sources. Even the linked ISSN in the ifobox goes to a World Cat page containing no information (try it!). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something fishy here. No coverage at all in other sources, as far as I can see. The publisher is International Research Publication House, which has no article, nor much coverage. Its website publishes a number of "International Journal of ... Research Journal"s, none of which have an article here. In each case there are links to the issues, and links to pdfs for the articles, but any I have followed seem to be missing. It might be legitimate but minor or little-known; but could just as easily be a subscription scam. Mcewan (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 by DGG. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jones (Gamer)[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable gamer. The references provided are from unreliable and self-published sources such as blogs, youtube videos and podcasts. Unable to find any news articles on the subject. - Mr X 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we not WP:Speedy A7 delete this? Mcewan (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Game Over - Absolutely not notable in anyway. Only sources are blogs and other extremely unreliable pages. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best !vote ever. - Mr X 01:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anke Ehlers[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Not a Professor nor evidence of scholarly impact. Gbawden (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a Fellow of the British Academy[18] seems to meet WP:SCHOLAR #3. Google Scholar shows a lot of citations - hundreds of citations of many of her papers and a h-index of about 54 (if you trust its figures and my calculations). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I don't know where the nominator gets the idea from that the subject is not a professor. Both of the sources that were cited at the time of nomination describe her as such. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the factors mentioned above, her Leopoldina and Academia Europaea memberships give her a triple pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Auldjo Jamieson[edit]

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

Non notable military person. No evidence of achieving senior rank or leading a significant body of troops. Notability isn't inherited from his father or his son Gbawden (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His notability does not rely on WP:SOLDIER, but on his being awarded a KBE (see WP:ANYBIO). Why we are not told, but he became chairman of Vickers Armstrong - there is some biographical information here on p182. The article is certainly unsatisfactory and requires referencing to better sources such as obituaries and probably a company history, but it is a keep. --AJHingston (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It now makes a more credible claim to notability. I added couple of refs after a brief look in newspaper libraries. A leading business figure with press coverage in his time (I cited a profile in the Observer). Presence in Who Was Who is an indication of notability too. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knight and chairman of one of the largest of all British armaments companies. Of course he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The Government thought him important enough to award him KBE. Vickers is (or was) an important manufacturing company and its chairman should be notable for that reason too. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women Live[edit]

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

Struggling to see how this passes Wikipedia:Notability No references, a BIG conflict of interest with editors and only 6 issues published in late 80's.Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as not notable. The article has no references at all. Roger (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- a magazine that cease publication after six issues can hardly be notable. If it had been notable, it would no doubt have continued being published. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuki Sakamoto[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: signed to a pro team but hasn't yet played in a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also new signings to the same team, but haven't yet played in a professional match, with proposed deletion similarly contested by the article's creator on the grounds that they are signed to a pro team:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per Altered Water and GiantSnowman. According to those page sources these players are straight out of uni, after otherwise playing in Japanese youth teams. I wouldn't be against article recreation though if/once they play a match for Albirex Niigata Singapore FC. Funny ^Pika 12:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about re-creating the articles: I asked at the creator's talk page about userfying all three, but haven't had an answer back yet. Altered Walter (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - None of these players have received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning all of them fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – due to the absence of reliable sources covering these individuals, they will have to meet project guidelines in order to demonstrate notability, which they don't. C 679 22:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first game is sometime today (based on UTC time) Singapore time, so this rationale may be rendered incorrect soon. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the S League Website, the season usually starts in February. You may be referring to a pre-season match, which doesn't count. Michitaro (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - has little coverage in sources, and has yet to play in a professional league. When he finally plays in the S League, then the article can be recreated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of GMA News TV stations. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYXZ-TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. I can't find any mentions in Google News or Books. Contested PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA News TV stations Station is local translator station for national broadcast network which originates no local content. Nate • (chatter) 05:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mrschimpf. No coverage in reliable sources, as it simply rebroadcasts content from the mother station. But then again, this is almost always the case in the Philippines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Genovese crime family New Jersey faction. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Esposito[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIME and WP:BASIC. The sources in the article only have passing mentions of him, and I couldn't find anything significant online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just spend some time gutting the article of the usual copyvio added by the article's creator. I agree, where he's mentioned it is briefly and as one of several others involved in the shakedown. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As an example, some of the copyvio was from [19], a source not used in the article and which gives him only a brief mention. What does concern me is all the respectable men with the same name - article should never had just a name without a qualification. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ralph Esposito does not pass WP:CRIME and is already mentioned in Genovese crime family New Jersey faction article.--Vic49 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps? What's the threshold for notability for redirects? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the relationship between the subject and the intended target passes WP:V, and by extension WP:BLP, then we could redirect rather than delete. WP:R also has some guidance. I also seem to remember that the subject should be mentioned in the target article somewhere, but I can't find the policy page that mentions it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Form 15CB[edit]

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

This is more or less how to information. It is specific to Indian tax law, and would be better in an article on that subject. I may be mistaken, but I do not see how specific tax form merit their own article. Skrelk (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an Indian tax guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taxation in India. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:MILL item that fails WP:GNG. Basically it's a tax form which covers Section 195 of the Indian Income Tax Act. A brief mention here would suffice. Funny ^Pika 13:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going through User:Sharmapriya5590's contributions and found more tax forms along similar lines (Form 2E, Form 3CA, Form 3CB, Form 3CD, Form 3CE, Form 10BA, Form 15CA, Form 16 and Form 22). I also found general income tax forms (ITR-1 SAHAJ, ITR-2, ITR 3, SUGAM ITR-4S). Depending on the outcome of this AfD, I would suggest the same for these. Funny ^Pika 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion about one of these forms followed on its WP:PROD at Talk:Form 2E. AllyD (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page and all other such pages except where a firm reference can be found that establishes the form as notable (and not just a how-to-fill-it-in guide, of relevance only to accountants on the one side and bureaucrats on the other). AllyD (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unique hues[edit]

I withdraw this AfD. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some pieces of para-scientific heresy diluted in an apparent WP:SYNTH and obvious original research (read Special:PermanentLink/487322572 #References), and with brilliantly ironical title. It is apparent that four (ironically) different sects draw crosses on the color wheel and, obviously, cannot converge to an agreement about values of so named "4 cardinal hues" even roughly, with mismatches about 40° (where adjacent "cardinal hues" should be separated by 90° in average). Despite this, the article speaks about "these four colors". The only article's source is http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/PDFs/AppearanceLec.pdf , but even worse, data for hues are claimed to be based on that obscure presentation only indirectly. For example, the article gives 20.14° for red, the PDF gives 24°, and Natural Color System offers 345°. Likewise, yellow is 90° in the article, but 50° in NCS (note that NCS's yellow is closer to reds of both unique hues and AppearanceLec.pdf than to their yellow). The fourth different(probably, the same as of NCS —Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)) set of "unique hues" is presented in commons:File:Opponent colors.svg, related to the opponent process article, which is mentioned in the "unique hues" at the very beginning as the theoretical framework. [reply]

~~I do not believe that an article is possible. At best,~~ it may be moved to a section in Hue, after cleansing from the OR. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original revision of the article is now scrapped. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is a bit problematical, because it’s a stub (just as many stubs are). However, the subject itself is clearly encyclopedic, and there are hundreds of articles in the scientific literature about it. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=unique+hue –jacobolus (t) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article (even of the stub class) should state, what constitutes the phenomenon. It is a piece of psychology? Physiology? Is it culturally influenced? The number 4 is a consequence of a theory (as in opponent process with its two

x - y

and

z

signals, if I understood correctly)? An unfounded belief? An experimentally established fact? If the latter, then which experiments determined this number and what else numbers of "unique hues" were proposed? It would be astonishing if this topic will appear to be scientific, but the article presented it as a conglomerate of fringe beliefs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is well-established: see The Science of Color, for example. The frequencies of light which correspond to this may be experimentally determined – see Unique hues - Perception and brain imaging, for example. That experiment indicates that the sensation is produced within the visual cortex but that the mechanism is not fully understood. In the circumstances, the nomination seems to be tendentious but the nominator has not yet troubled to take his objections to the article's talk page. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I see that article's creator had some clue about their material, then I usually try to save the article. This it not the case. It's true that I neglected searches in Google Scholar, but in any case the proponents of the article have to prove that this theory is notable. Just rewrite the article and show the notability, and it will be kept. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is interesting to note that the article uses a photograph of a mandala which I took myself. This just seems to be a coincidence — it's a small world... Warden (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, it looks like due diligence in investigating notability was not performed before nomination. Please see WP:BEFORE for the steps one should take before nominating an article. The first page of Google hits for "Unique Hues" shows multiple links to academic papers on the subject. Searching Google Scholar yields 1,300 hits and scanning the list shows plenty of peer-reviewed articles in reliable journals such as Visual Neuroscience and Journal of the Optical Society of America. Searching Google Books yields 2,950 hits; some of these are textbooks such as, The Science of Color and handbooks, such as The Blackwell Handbook of Sensation and Perception. The topic is highly notable. It has been studied in visual neuroscience and the psychology of perception. It has also been studied in anthropology. The fact that there are multiple approaches to the topic does not preclude writing an article on it; one just needs to include the main approaches with due weight. Any problems with the article can be fixed through editing and consensus building on the article's talk page; AfD is not for cleanup, see WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details. This article should thus be kept. Mark viking (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list of http queries does prove existence of researches in this domain, but it does not prove that the theory of 4 cardinal hues is notable, at all. The article poses "4 cardinal hues" as an established fact, but without clarifying whether this "fact" is relevant to physiology, psychology or cultural-related perception (such as mapping actual colors to color terms). Please, clarify this matter and add at least one scientific source which explains existence of exactly four unique hues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, present alternate points of view to get a neutral article. I've seen this article here who classifies up to ~~nine~~eleven basic colors, expanding on the previous research that showed four. That one source cites four hues is not a reason to delete the article, but to expand it with other available possibilities. Diego (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you're getting nine from in that source (which lists eleven basic colours). Anyway, a basic colour is not the same thing as a unique hue. For example, orange is listed as a basic colour but it's not a unique hue because it is commonly perceived as a yellowy-red or reddish-yellow so doesn't have the elemental quality of yellow or red. Warden (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I may assert that your "green" is nothing but our (standard) green (which is a pure color) with some blue (or cyan) admixture. And that your non-standard 90° yellow is just the true yellow spoiled with green and black. Without protracted series of experiments either your or my statements are merely a chaff. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion is about whether the article Unique hues should be kept; in this case, that decision will be based largely on whether Unique hues is a notable topic or not. I presented general evidence that Unique hues is a notable topic--I can look up and quote example articles if you like, in addition to the two books mentioned. But this discussion isn't a referendum on a particular theory of unique hues. Some theories favor 4 colors, others favor 3, but for the purposes of this AfD, it doesn't matter. It only matters that the topic is highly notable, the article problems are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE) and the article has potential (see WP:POTENTIAL). When the problems are surmountable and and the article has potential, the policy recommends keeping the article. If the current article content has little or no value, we can stubify it, but the article itself should not be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, but without prejudice for recreation: The topic probably is notable, but this article is full of OR, some of which openly contradicts the "sources". Most or all of this needs to be scrapped p b p 17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to decide the quality of the article, but the merits of the topic. Surmountable problems should be dealt with cleanup and improvement. If you scrap most of it, you get a stub, which is a valid reason to keep the article given that the topic is notable. Diego (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current draft only cites one reference. That is just for the detailed colour angles in the CIECAM02 model and that checks out. So that is neither contradictory nor original. If we check out some other statement which currently doesn't have a supporting citation, such as "Leonardo da Vinci defined these four as the basic colors from which other colors should be mixed", then it seems easy to find a source which verifies this such as Color Ordered:A Survey of Color Systems from Antiquity to the Present. Purple should please provide an example of a contradiction as currently their !vote contains no evidence to support that vehement assertion and so seems quite misleading. Warden (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, an example of a contradiction is mentioned in the nomination... p b p 19:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is too much of a rant for me to clearly discern a contradiction. Please be specific and tell us what you think is original and contradictory in the article. If all you are doing is agreeing with the bilious views of the nomination, then a per nom seems a better way of putting it. Warden (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really read my rant? The yellow of Fairchild–Jacobolus has h = 90°. The yellow of NCS and Opponent_colors.svg has h = 50°. At last, the standard RGB and CMYK yellow has h = 60° (I do not known whether a noticeable difference in hue between #FFFF00 and Y exists, but it certainly is not greater than few degrees). And similar picture with "red". How do you explain that NCS and Fairchild–Jacobolus deviate from standard colors in opposite directions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need explain that, we report of both points of view, unless we can find a reliable source that explains the discrepancy. Read the neutral point of view policy to see how contradictory claims are handled - we don't delete them, we just expose both sides. Diego (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not decide whether the theory is "substantiated" or not. But we decide whether something which looks like a theory actually exists. If one source states that h_Y = 50°, another that h_Y = 90°, and none can be found to explains either experimental or theoretical grounds, then we can't pose that a distinct theory of 4 cardinal hues does exist. Of course, article can be transformed along your lines, but it requires extensive rewriting from the very lead. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Incnis. I think you misunderstand how these models work. There’s nothing inherently significant about particular hue numbers, and the same color does not have the same hue angle when you move from one model to another. RGB/CMYK are entirely irrelevant to this subject. The specification of unique hues in CIECAM02 is directly based on the research done in establishing the NCS system, but the overall definition of hue is quite different, so the spacing of these same hues differs between the models. –jacobolus (t) 07:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image shown at right may be helpful here. It shows a plot of hue on the horizontal axis, value on the vertical axis, in the Munsell system. The color shown are at the edge of the sRGB gamut. Various points of interest are plotted in terms of their hue/value. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 07:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifications. Now we "move from one unique hue model to another", while spacing and number of cardinal hues change. There is one picture for NCS and another for Fairchild's model. But really Fairchild's presentation is a sufficient source, especially on "the spacing of these same hues differs between the models"? The picture… nice picture, but it is not an RS. I also made such pictures to illustrate my arguments. Which source states that "there’s nothing inherently significant about particular hue numbers"? If something about "how these models work" (in some uniform fashion) is reliably sourced, then the article definitely should be kept. Otherwise any designer or painter can select "his/her own favorite unique hues" and there is nothing notable in it beyond the Hue article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you explain what means "the same color does not have the same hue angle when you move from one model to another". Of course, I can use different parameterizations, but why invent non-standard ones? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, jacobolus tried to say the thing explained in CIECAM02 #Appearance correlates. ~~Then his calculation of color samples is not only original, but completely incorrect, with confusion between CIECAM02's hue and the standard hue.~~ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTCLEANUP, this is not the right place for such a discussion. Please withdraw your nomination and familiarise yourself with the literature. You might start with papers such as Variability in Unique Hue Selection or Locating the Unique Hues, which seem to explain the difficulties quite well and further confirm the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the burden of proponents. I want to make Wikipedia better, which includes suppressing of various ignorant and obscurantist stuff posed to be a part of the science. I am not obliged to search sources on every marginally notable theory, myself. I will not read a single paper on this subject until proponents made their first edit, either to the problematic article or to the Hue article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incnis: You have deep misconceptions about how color science models work, and you seem to be uninterested in learning about the subject, for reasons I can’t really understand. I’m not going to clear things up in a few sentences of explanation, so my general advice is: go read an introductory color science textbook or two, and then come back, and we can have a much more informed discussion. The first half of Fairchild’s book Color Appearance Models does a pretty good job of giving an overview, but if you want other book recommendations, I’d be happy to provide some. Or if you’re interested in online resources, this site is pretty clear and comprehensive [20]. Cheers! –jacobolus (t) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Frank Graven[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about apparently non-notable race car driver. No signs of substantial independent coverage in reliable sources; none of the tournaments competed in appear to be particularly notable. Written by autobiographical single-purpose account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Is the article puffy and promotional? Probably. Is this guy notable? Certainly - he's competed in Formula Drift, which is the major drift competition of the US. [21] and [22] (the latter of which is already cited in the article). Lukeno94 (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Formula Drift" = Formula D (I have now linked in-article) and that would seem like a notable tournament to me. I think some strategic WP:TNT placement might be in order but I think the subject is notable. Stalwart111 00:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted the article needs cleanup, but that's not what AfD is here for. And Formula Drift drivers would pass WP:NMOTORSPORT #1 (have driven in a fully professional series) and WP:NSPORT #1 (has competed at the top level of their sport). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lee (Irish footballer)[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Previously nominated for deletion due to lack of sources, one of which was added; there is still no indication of sufficient notability. C 679 09:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lukeno94 and GiantSnowman. Irish one-club player whose team has been stuck in the second division. Funny ^Pika 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes on Mobile App[edit]

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

I can find no mention of this product at all, apart from listings on various download sites, which suggests it fails WP:GNG. WP:PRODUCT and WP:NSOFTWARE too. Alexrexpvt (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree there's no coverage. Tempted to say transwiki to Wikivoyage. But deletion as non-notable is good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. I can't find any credible reviews for this travel guide app. Funny ^Pika 14:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ian Gilmour, Baron Gilmour of Craigmillar. Wifione ^Message 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Caroline Gilmore[edit]

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

This person does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE. DexDor (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amongst the Dukes of Buccleuch and the Gilmour baronetcy notability is strongly inherited. Thincat (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide to do with this lady shouldn't involve using the "delete" button. If she's proved notable than the article can be retained, and if not it should be merged and redirected to one of the two articles Thincat links above. In no case should it be deleted because of our policy about alternatives to deletion.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course S Marshall is right about not losing the information or any redirect. I had wondered about merging to her husband's article[23] (a bit like Gert and Daisy!) but that seems invidious and is probably against some guideline I don't know about. Thincat (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on husband, this woman is entirely non-notable in her own right.TheLongTone (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor notability but notability all the same, was sufficiently notable to be selected to launch HMS Cardiff. Agree the content shouldn't be lost. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on husband. Her husband was Secretary of State for Defence at the time, so I don't think her launching HMS Cardiff reflects any independent notability on her part. Neljack (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to her husband. Not independently notable. She was no doubt asked to launch the ship because of who her husband was. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wishes deleted data for a future merge, just ask Wifione ^Message 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Roar FC Youth League[edit]

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

Not a youth league, actually a youth team of the Brisbane Roar FC club. No indication why a youth football team merits a separate article. C 679 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not making my official decision yet but technically the A-League National Youth League is a nationwide league which spans all of Australia at a national level. I think that like in the way we give Premier Academy League teams like Arsenal F.C. Academy or Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy a separate article for playing at the national level that we should also do the same for Australia. As long as they can prove they have played in a national level then I see no need for the page to be deleted. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, those teams pass WP:GNG. In this case, this team appears to fail that guideline. I recommend Merging with Brisbane Roar FC - and also 2011-12 Brisbane Roar Youth League season should be merged into 2011-12 Brisbane Roar season. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the 2011-12 Brisbane Roar Youth League season article. Youth teams should not have season articles. Ever. But again I do have a few concerns about the youth team article being deleted. Yes it fails GNG but I bet with a bit of fine tuning that can be achieved. I may work on that to get it to pass. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources - and couldn't find anything useful - before I made that comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Okay, voting time. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Could deserve a mention on the parent article, nothing more. Giant Snowman 10:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and despite playing in a national league that really only fully works for senior clubs and not their youth teams. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brisbane Roar FC is a pretty big article and it could do with some scaling back, there is evidence of notability on the web from Australian sources. I do feel that an article for Brisbane Roar F.C. Reserves and Acedemy would be fine. On another note, isn't the redirects back to front? Should the article be on Brisbane Roar F.C. and Brisbane Roar FC redirecting to that? Govvy (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some of these sources? As to whether the redirects are backwards, well, it depends what the team refer to themselves as, I guess. An article on the reserves and academy (note, that's how you actually spell that word) might not be a bad idea - if there's some coverage on the teams. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Naming convertion we normally use on the project is F.C. for the article, That's been a standard, as for sources, 5 or more, I saw a few on google when I did a search, shouldn't be too hard should it? Govvy (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the naming convention, it does seem backwards, but I was hypothesizing. Are they from reliable sources though, and are they in-depth and non-trivial/non-routine pieces though? Lukeno94 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangs_(hip_hop_artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP guidelines on notability for living persons. As a music fan I have failed to find anything other than a viral video from 2009, and a single instance of fame doesn't make WP notability. One must win the same award, or album success with a major label twice to meet notability guidelines Monstermarch (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 2011 when first AFD happened first media appearances ended, result was keep. Since then nothing new, or noteworthy, or notable has come from bangs. The previous keep was tenuous. Thus while I wont vote Ill recommend deletion. Unless someone can support this artist retaining any relevance. Monstermarch (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 17. Snotbot t • c » 04:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a single instance of fame doesn't make WP notability". That's not true: WP:MUSBIO says one award, one hit single/album, one gold record, one international tour can all be enough to gain notability. (Whether any of that happened here is another matter.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - insufficient reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1 with examples of coverage in Billboard [24], XXL [25][26], and MTV [27][28]. Gong show 19:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a number of references to him in the media, indicating that he has managed to use his YouTube fame - signing with a major label, appearing on a national television advertisement and performing at the BDO. Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - don't see why this is a reason to delete the page and it does meet the WP:MUSICBIO. JoyRider (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sufficient notability has been established per comments above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tygon tubing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tygon Tubing

Articles for deletion/Tygon tubing (2nd nomination)

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

Nothing has changed in the four years since this was last nominated. It is still a thinly veiled product advertisement. I have looked for sources again, and found nothing much of substance; most of the hits are either to various companies that sell the stuff, or books on various construction or assembly related topics that mention it in passing. The last deletion discussion ended as "keep and improve", but that hasn't happened. No surprises there- the only two people who tried to improve it were not able to and !voted delete accordingly. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gosh, Tygon tubing is ubiquitous in biological labs and is used a great deal in the medical field as well. Just performing a quick search on PubMed yields at least 20 scholarly peer-reviewed articles both on Tygon tubing and its use for medical purposes. The Pubmed IDs of the papers found are 10585152, 9360133, 10160448,

18285028, 10149011, 2459866, 2955684, 5960696, 17733451, 21250846, 21222386, 20807440, 17031628, 6875695, 15553219, 12455773, 12229263, 11958303, 11852696, and 11001170. The topic is well above threshold for notability. While the article needs to be given a more neutral viewpoint and better references, it has good information. Note that AfD is not for article cleanup, WP:NOTFORCLEANUP, and there is no time limit for improving articles, WP:NOTIMELIMIT, so neither of these issues prevent keeping this article on a notable topic. Mark viking (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon review of the sources provided above by User:Mark viking, the topic appears to pass Wikipedia's notability test. Sources that appear to be directly about Tygon tubing or contain significant information about it are: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. The sources are paywalled, but this does not disqualify them, per WP:PAYWALL. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable - glad others found sources to back this up. -- Scray (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google books search on "Tygon" clearly indicates that this is a notable and very widely used product. I do agree though that the tone and content are overly promotional. Mcewan (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The One Peoples Public Trust[edit]

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

Page is a huge essay about the author's stance on the US government. Existing sources on the page primarily shore up the author's point, rather than establishing notability. Googling the page name comes up with a large amount of Wordpress blogs (that are basically just backlinks), but I wasn't readily able to find anything I'd call a reliable source. InShaneee (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. InShaneee (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

could you be more specific about what "point" you are reading? Everything I have posted there is discussed on the talk page as its being researched. Every single word is copied from the basis documents. Also, in good faith, I am presenting factual documentation and the easier way to resolve your matter is to edit the article rather than delete it. That would be constructive. For an article only "alive" for one day, just my opinion but maybe you should give people some time to pitch in. The word you use is "author", however, I am only another editor. Are you showing some sort of bias there towards me? Just curious. ImthatIm (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is almost entirely about the organization's legal beliefs regarding the "corporation" of the United States. It has very little about the organization itself, particularly anything that would pass the Wikipedia notability standard for organizations. This discussion is not about the beliefs and/or stance of the organization, just the organization itself and whether it can prove notability through reliable, verifiable sources, and not just original research. And no, I don't have a 'bias' towards you. InShaneee (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability for the group per WP:ORG; no significant coverage of the group online from WP:Reliable sources; currently just a collection of WP:Original research and an essay on the author's political opinions per WP:NOTOPINION. Altered Walter (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I am starting to understand what you mean, but, this is not an article about an organization. That's probably the problem. This is an article about a Trust. This is not a Trust Fund. Its a legal Trust. The "organization" includes every human being that lives on the North American Continent north of the Mexican Border and South of the Canadian Border. The "entity" is "We the People" that is written notably on what is commonly known as the US Constitution. The trustees are just 3 attorneys that did the work on reclaiming the defaulted former corporation which is listed as a subsidiary of the The Ethiopian World Federation, Incorporated. You can see that on the documentation as they are the creditor for the various entities named. I realize this might be news to you, but according to the filings, the older corporation was notified nearly a year ago already. If you think deleting this now is okay, and you would rather watch the news on TV in a few months simply because you refuse to believe cold hard facts, thats fine too, I suppose. You might notice that the documentation site about the trust has no commerce, is not selling anything, and is not advertising anything either. Its intent appears to be wholly educational/documentary to me. The web site itself though, because it has no notability as a web site, I figured it should stay as an external link. It is not actually a party to the organization as its principal. The organization is comprised of some 300+ million people. The reason I started the article is because I saw some blogs about it and I went to check it out here on Wikipedia and to my surprise there was absolutely nothing here, so, it just made sense to put it in then dig up the facts. 10 years ago, here on Wikipedia, that was pretty much how things were done. People would pitch in and help try and see what was up until an article had been worked on enough to start picking on the grammar, etc. It was called "good faith collaborative" editing. Like I said before, its been quite awhile. ImthatIm (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, just to reply about reliable sources. They are in the references. They are Uniform Commercial Code Filings direct from Washinton and you can find out more about their credibility at UCC. ImthatIm (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing, just to be crystal clear, the part in the middle of the article that says that the last lawful President was Lincoln was filed by the former government ( the corporation you refer to as the US Government ). You might notice that among that groups entities is US Congress, but not the CIA, the GSA, but not the FBI, the DHS, but not the US Army, strange but true. Also the parts about being in default of various treaties, selling body parts, etc. etc. these were all filed by that organization as well. These were not filed by the three attorneys acting on behalf of "We the People" in the Public Trust. Keep in mind that there are plenty of presidents in the USA. There are presidents of Banks, there are presidents of Untilities, and this group is just another corporation and has a president, too. I think its obvious that the attorneys are acting "ethically" on behalf of the people of the North American territories, but if you think that word is opinionated and original research rather than obvious, I would certainly understand. Also you might want to read the documentation site a bit, just for yourselves if you happen to live in these areas because they do require that every single person eventually determine whether they are of "We the People" in trust as a group or if a person is by their own free will and accord in collusion with the former corporation, acting on its behalf. From what i understand, each seperate act after being notified of the matter counts as a seperate felony. Hope this helps. ImthatIm (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As further evidence in all fairness of the "The One People's Trust 1776" as a Trust, I went to the UCC filings and looked up what was the filing for UNITED STATES in the following manner and it is is listed there on the top of the filing:

Access UCC records: https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/ucc/

Search Records

Search name of a debtor that is an organization

Organization Name: UNITED STATES

Continue

2011-362-9411-4 The United States of America Initial 12/28/2011 12/28/2016

https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/ucc/filingDetail.aspx?id=EpquHkUu7pf7ZKvYm9bFDg==

Read the document

Charles C: Miller

The People's Public Trust 1776 c/o Charles C:

Miller, Trustee

1402 Auburn Way N #416/417

Auburn WA USA 98002

Date of Filing : 12/28/2011

Time of Filing : 12:57:00 PM

File Number : 2011-362-9411-4

Lapse Date : 12/28/2016

DEBTOR: UNITED STATES

DEBTOR: Rothschild Trust (Schneiz) A.G., et al

SECURED PARTY: The United States of America

ADDITIONAL DEBTORS:

UNITED STATES TREASURY

FEDERAL RESERVE

BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS

STATEMENT:

A. The United States of America 1781, Executive Order April 27, 1861, last lawfully

elected President, President Lincoln’s Order to Commanding General of the Army of

the United States, Winfield Scott, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a resulting

trust administering an act in direct contravention of Article 1 § 9 1791 Constitution, a

private act by usurping office, never authorized by Original Contact Constitution

1791, The United States of America under military rule through Executive Order,

from April 21, 1861 to date, still in place to date; a surety to principal The One People

1776, Creditors

ImthatIm (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't a debate forum for you to argue your point. It's an encyclopedia that is meant to document established facts about the world. This article is arguing for some way-out-there theory about the government. It is not written like a normal encyclopedia article and is essentially impossible to understand. There is no sense of context and no relation to the average reader's point of view. How can this article be said to be informing anyone of anything when it starts off in a way that is completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't suffering from the same mental illness as the author? I have no idea what this article is about and user ImthatIm is less interested in explaining what it is and more interested in trying to argue / advocate for some extremely paranoid conspiracy theory.Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6G (cellular network)[edit]

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

Seems like a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to me. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 02:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete No cites, indefinite predictions.... Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Given that 5G is far from confirmed as a standard, and that 4G is brand new, this fails WP:CRYSTAL regardless of the article. It possibly fails G2 of SPD, but this article is uncategorized, unreferenced, and contains very little information of any use. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and since we have no idea whether we will ever actually get to 5G, this is just speculation at present. — sparklism ^hey! 14:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Unsubstantiated communication standard based on previous iterations, far WP:TOOSOON. Funny ^Pika! 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of high frame rate (HFR) movies[edit]

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

Delete The list hereof does not have significant coverage nor established acceptance yet in the motion picture industry. It is a fringe technology which is covered in the individual articles of the handful of films listed as well as the articles on High Frame Rate and Frame Rate. NickCochrane (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 17. Snotbot t • c » 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, this is my first AfD nomination. NickCochrane (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to High Frame Rate Delete. I agree that this article is unnecessary, especially since half of it is based on rumors. However, I do think such an article could eventually be created if it becomes more common. Alphius (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering only one of these films are out, and that the 6 films represent 3 directors (5 coming from the same 2 directors), shouldn't we just let the article on High Frame Rate include the history as in unfolds in the Motion Picture Industry? NickCochrane (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is already in High frame rate. If HFR becomes common there probably still would not be a need to list films based on just this one aspect. We don't have a list of "Stereo movies". Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since so far, just one exists. And I agree with Steve that even if HFR becomes the standard we still won't need a list, just like we don't have lists of widescreen movies, movies in colour or movies with sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the good graces of the movie gods, it will not become standard. NickCochrane (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nick and Steve. Completely redundant article. Etobgirl (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nick, Steve and Etobgirl. LenaLeonard (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now because there are not enough actual films to make up a stand-alone list. However, I would not be opposed to recreating this list down the road when there are more films. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There would have to be at least 20, or 30 films done this way to warrant that future list. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there have to be that many. It depends on when we start seeing independent lists of HFR films per WP:NOTESAL. We're definitely talking at least a few years' time, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the trend suggests it may be an industry fad, but no one can really predict that kind of thing. Agreed, too early to have a list now, in a few years we'll see if people are still using this gimmick. LenaLeonard (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a list should be made when the number of movies is too big for High Frame Rate. That should be quite a while. On the other hand if it turns out that sometime in the future most movies will use it then a list would also not be needed, as others have said. Check out Front-wheel drive. There is no "List of front-wheel drive cars." Steve Dufour (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one key benefit of having a stand-alone list down the road is that it can link similar films together. I've created a few lists of films featuring similar content like you can see at Panic Room#See also. Each film article in each list has a "See also" section that links back to the list. Having an obvious list provides the value of cross-navigation on Wikipedia. It can answer the question, "What other films with a high frame rate are there?" Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to category and delete - this is the kind of thing that categories are well-suited for, but as noted, no reason for the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7, under the rationale "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Violates WP:CRYSTALBALL." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Mickey 3: Tri Again[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTALBALL Dengero (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Crystal ball article. The game hasn't even been officially announced yet, and because of that, it's not known if "Tri Again" will be the name. Lugia2453 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugia2453. Alphius (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Asato[edit]

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

Unelected candidate in a future election. No evidence of notability. Dmol (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Rwendland (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deelte NN as yet. She is selected to fight a marginal seat and holds positions in several prominent organisations, but not enough to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News searches briefly mention her minor Labour party roles, but don't discuss it in much detail. A local councillor position doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Funny ^Pika! 03:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Manufacturing[edit]

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

Not notable in its own right per WP:ORG. A redir to Cambridge University Engineering Department may be an option. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greater reference to external work may be required. The IfM is in its own right arguably the most externally-facing element of one of the world's finest universities, and the article should draw on a large number of sources to back this up. It could be folded into the CUED article if it were more typical of CUED's output; it isn't, and deserves (a) its own article and (b) for that article to be better written and informative than it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.239.172 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IfM is the Manufacturing and Management Division of the Department of Engineering in Cambridge. As you say, the IfM is one of the most externally facing elements of the University, and so deserves its own page. Greater referencing is required still. Forwarding to the University of Cambridge or Department of Engineering page does not make sense as visitors will be looking fr specific information about the IfM, and so people are not aware that the IfM is part of the Department of Engineering . (Nm402 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is the only one of about five divisons of Cambridge University Engineering Department to have its own WP page, though each appears to have its own webpage, linked from that page, merely as a list of divisions, without any text on them individually. We need to decide whehter the other divisions should have their own WP page, or this should be merged back to the departmental page, leaving a redirect. Whatever happens the two need more integration. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other divisions are smaller and - merely by dint of a reduced external face - are less referenced externally, making them less defensible under WP guidelines on notability. The IfM operates somewhat autonomously from a satellite site and is widely referenced in both topic-related and national media, as well as in HMG white papers and reports. There is a case for the IfM having a page separate from CUED as a whole which may not necessarily be echoed for all - or any - of the other divisions. Similarity may be drawn with Warwick Manufacturing Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtlh2 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Inline skates. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inline skate wheel setups[edit]

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

WP:OR, WP:NN, WP:NOTMANUAL. Unreferenced article about how to set up wheels for inline skating. The only Google hits I can find for most of the setups are on forums or eBay. Pburka (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inline skates, because the material is on a aspect of that. The other article already has a section on types of wheels. There is no reason it shouldn't have a section on setups too. The (actually fairly simple) information could also be presented with a lot fewer words and pictures. Borock (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Boam[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NGYMNASTICS -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:ATHLETE. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Skeleton Mask[edit]

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

Looking at a Google search I did not find anything under News or Books. Also, the web search netted very few results and nothing related from an independent and reliable source. As such under WP:ALBUM this content does not warrant a standalone article and should be merged into Omar Rodríguez-López discography. This could also be a multiple article nomination as it seems he has an article for every album of which most are about as filled though I haven't performed WP:BEFORE on any of them. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López discography as a plausible search term, but an individual page does not seem warranted as I'm not finding significant coverage for this album; just personal/social networking sites, blog/forum posts, and torrent file links. This release does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have missed out on most attention as it was something of a surprise album released almost simultaneously with two others. That said, keep as it's still a full-length studio album by a notable artist and there's little reason to have articles on all their other albums but not this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely setting aside WP:NALBUM, saying the band has other album articles so this one should be kept is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. There could be so many possible reasons for that including the fact which you mention in that this album received less attention. Mkdw ^talk 05:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. If it later receives critical attention the article can be recovered, but at the moment it's not notable, and we don't know for sure that it will be notable. Even Woman Gives Birth To Tomato! currently fails to demonstrate notability, so we can hardly assume all his albums are automatically notable. Even some much bigger artists have non-notable albums (Cliff Richard comes to mind). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for same reasons as above, does not appear to meet WP:GNG yet, but creating the redirect will mean that the term does remain searchable within Wikipedia and provides a possibility to expand if and when it does become notable.—Baldy Bill (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foy & Associates[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more notable than any local ambulance chaser outfit anywhere. I can't find anything that would put this past WP:GNG, let along WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although I am deleting the article, if someone wishes the contents for a future merge to Baldwin the Eagle, do request me on my talk page Wifione ^Message 18:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double and Triple Eagles[edit]

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

Neologism specific only to Boston College: no acceptance in the broader world. Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG GrapedApe (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first sentence says it's a nickname. Already that goes against "WP is not a dictionary." It could be mentioned in the articles on the 3 schools. Borock (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baldwin the Eagle. Just Boston College trivia, but it's related to the nickname and mascot. Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disagree that this list of various people including Mass. politicians, lawyers, and similar distinguished professionals belongs within an article about the athletics mascot. UW Dawgs (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UW Dawgs (which is interesting, given that s/he is disagreeing with me) that the lists of "notables" should not be merged. The remaining content of the article – currently four sentences, but it could probably be rephrases as two or three – could be merged (that is, the suggestion that "double eagle" and "triple eagle" are slang terms for BC graduates). Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Boston College trivia, and also ambiguous - I saw the title and assumed it was about golf... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boston College#AHANA. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AHANA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neologism coined by Boston College: has no acceptance in the broader world. Some minor mentions in articles, but fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG GrapedApe (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if applicable; to what?) and redirect: if it is an established term used by one large institution, it is worth keeping as a redirect, but notability-wise, it fails. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to existing AHANA section at Boston College page. Has some use outside of BC, but not enough to warrant its own article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has been taken to DRV for the NAC. I have reviewed the close and given the sources provided by NA1000 and the traction that they gained I confirm that the close was the same as mine would have been as a prelude to closing the DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala-India relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. offering visa free travel or incidents of illegal migration (unless massive) do not add to notability. and a competing spice trade rather than trade between countries is hardly notable. bilateral trade of $93 million is tiny, considering Guatemala has a GDP of $47 billion and India, $1.8 trillion LibStar (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An embassy, minor trade and so on, and common membership in multinational organizations do not add up to "bilateral relations". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bilateral visits and specially India-SICA are important. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the article makes no reference to bilateral visits please provide sources. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw somewhere in India.gov website, but, tight now, I can find this --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic is notable and passes WP:GNG. Source examples include (some are non-English): [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. There are enough sources that consist of significant coverage from which to base a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an important encylopedic topic and under the gazzeeteer mandate of the WP:5P. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin editor has recycled this argument many a time [47], [48] without addressing the specifics of the AfD in question. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reportlinker[edit]

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

Article about seemingly non-notable company that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The only news articles I could find were the result of press releases. - Mr X 23:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are official websites: - SIIA: 2012 Codie Awards pages - Deloitte: Technology Fast 500 EMEA rankings pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felize2013 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, official web sites mean very little when determining reliable sources for notability. What we need are news articles, magazine articles, books, academic journals and similar independent, reliable sources. - Mr X 14:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see that they are prolific when it comes to issuing press releases. I was unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Cloud Service Management[edit]

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

This is an essay, albeit one with bullet points, but it is, nonetheless, pure original research and an opinion piece. It's a decent one, but is nothing more than that in Wikipedia terms Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original research. Unless someone can find a suitable merge or redirect target, which I can't. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. - Mr X 01:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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