The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John P. McEneny[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

John P. McEneny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think this person meets the notability guidelines. The coverage below (which substantiates that the person exists, but does not establish notability) doesn't do it, and there's nothing else out there. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a search and I couldn't find anything that would show that he passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. While he has written a few plays and seems to be a popular teacher to his students, that in itself isn't enough to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I have a feeling that this might end up attracting some of his students, so I want to add the "not a vote" label to this in case they do show up.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete. I'm forced to agree with Tokyogirl; there's no indication that the subject passes either of those notability guidelines. Usual Caveats apply, however; it's possible that one of the subject's plays (or their academic work) might gain some notice in the future. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - No significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aarresaaren sankarit[edit]

Aarresaaren sankarit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note All actor articles listed except Miia Nuutila are redirects back to this article. --hydrox (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. Surely there are more notable productions by Mervi Pohjanheimo than this from her 60 year career? Lack of sources apart from an IMDb link and the lack of fi-wiki article make any further analysis than "it is apparently not very notable" hard. --hydrox (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Sadly, due to lack of abundance of reliable sources. Also delete the redirects as they're non notable actors who were redirected for that very reason.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I cannot find any sources which are not mirrors of Wikipedia. However, there may be Finnish sources which I cannot find; I would support keeping the article if any can be provided. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aatamin poika[edit]

Aatamin poika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Director Heikki Veijola is a redirect back to this article. --hydrox (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are actually pretty well-known Finnish actors in this movie, even if it is not probably that well-publicized production as a short. Seems to enjoy some popularity: Google search gives up some BitTorrent sites, hinting that it has been enough popular to become a subject to online piracy, and YLE did a re-run in spring 2009. --hydrox (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I believe YLE TV programmes are notable and there are notable actors in it, I'll look for more sources later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Guitar[edit]

Absolute Guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Very low notability Finnish short film by an author without own article. Two sentences and a link to IMDb won't be missed. --hydrox (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sadly, due to lack of abundance of reliable sources. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Blofeld--Sabri76'^talk 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Dr Blofeld. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability. There may be Finnish sources which we have not come across; I would vote keep if any can be found. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melissa Schuman#Lady Phoenix. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Phoenix[edit]

Lady Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Group has never got off the ground. Article is horribly outdated. Sources are not reliable and/or do not establish notability of group. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The references used in the article are in no way reliable: twitter, facebook, and a blog. No other reliable sources seem available. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree, there's not enough here for an article, and I don't think there's a reason to keep the history. Last time this went to AfD, the consensus was to redirect to Melissa Schuman. Redirects are cheap, and maybe we recreate with that redirect, but we certainly don't need the history. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Melissa Schuman per rationale above.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Redirect to Melissa Schuman#Lady Phoenix where there is some info. I can find no signficant coverage about this group, and their myspace page shows no evidence of ever having put an album out. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISPmanager[edit]

ISPmanager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable software product. Article has no credible references and notability is not asserted e.g. number of installations / user base. Biker Biker (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete: No notability shown since the article was deleted in the first AfD. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is a translation from Russian Wikipedia. And there this article was approved. With regard to the number of usings - then the software mentioned in webhostingtalk.com http://www.webhostingtalk.com/wiki/ISPmanager also a major hosting provider VPS.net use this soft http://www.vps.net/blog/2009/04/28/ispmanager-pro-free-cp-for-vpsnet-users/ http://www.google.com/search?q=ispmanager+site%3Avps.net 92.124.61.99 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this IP address has made no other contributions. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Those sources appear to be questionable per wp:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources and therefore would not be considered sufficient to establish notability per wp:gng. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is large software company from Russia, see http://ispsystem.com/en/events/list Ls-irk (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this newly-registered account has made no other contributions --Biker Biker (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In accordance with wp:gng, sources that are not independent of the subject do not establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They have a rather large number of partners around the world, see http://ispsystem.com/en/partners/list and http://ispsystem.com/en/partners/feedback Tkizhnerova (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this user has admitted to being an employee of the company in this edit on my talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it's not a secret! I do not hide my real name. --Tkizhnerova (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In accordance with wp:gng, sources that are not independent of the subject do not establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable per WP:CORP, bordering on advertising. — Brianhe (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've been an ISPsystem's customer for a couple of years already. It is a well known Russian company. And i was suprised not to find any articles in Wikipedia about its software products. Finally, I found this one, but it is nominated for deletion! I think the imformation in this article may help other people to learn more about the ISPmanager control panel and ISPsystem in general. 92.124.60.56 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this IP address has made no other contributions. --Neo139 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Statements in discussions like these will carry much more weight if you point out a Wikipedia policy or guideline to justify your argument. Furthermore, wp:VALINFO is an argument that is supposed to be avoided. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tried to find some notable website that talks about this software but couldn't. Anon-user are welcome to point out reliable sources on this software. And I'll change this to keep.--Neo139 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My server runs ISPmanager. My provider has offered this software for years. Find out more http://ispserver.com/en/technology/ispmanager/index.html. Keep this article, I met guys from ISPsystem at HostingCon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HostingCon this year in San Diego http://www.hostingcon.com/account/exhibitors/view/313. 31.47.168.200 (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this IP address has made no other contributions.--Neo139 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - wp:gng requires that topics of articles on Wikipedia be the subject of multiple independent, reliable sources. The fact that your provider has offered this software does little to establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (was previously Keep, but after second thought I'm not so sure): this seems to be an actually popular ISP software in Russia; unlike nearly everything else it does even have an offline coverage: Петин, Виктор (2012). API Яндекс, Google и других популярных веб-сервисов. Готовые решения для вашего сайта. БХВ-Петербург. ISBN 978-5-9775-0743-1.. There's also a related news item on a reliable Russian IT news site: [1] (though in the previous AfD someone called it press release, it isn't). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The mail address of the developer is CJSC "ISPsystem" RUSSIA, Irkutsk-17, P.O.B 30, 664017. In addition to the company employee that has responded, all three of the IP addresses that have responded to this AfD are registered in Irkutsk. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it happen that people from Irkutsk with internet connection are more likely to watch the page as their level of awareness is higher? BTW, are You sure that addresses 92.124.61.99, 92.124.60.56 and 31.47.168.200 do all belong to Irkutsk? Your enthusiasm makes me feel that You have some special reasons to take this software out. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure, a whois check confirmed. As for my enthusiasm, it is only to prevent self-interest prevailing on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: they have different providers but all are from Irkutsk. As well as Ls-irk, as I guess from the nickname. Still I can't see any importance in this fact. The point that people in Irkutsk might happen to be more aware of the software in question still stands. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of multiple people from Irkutsk (1) being aware of the software, (2) being on Wikipedia, and (3) caring about the software on Wikipedia may not be approximately three thousand, seven hundred twenty to one, but they're way up there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but unless they are accused of bad faith, this is irrelevant. And if they are indeed accused, there should be some proof beyond the similarities of their positions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: Notability cannot be established from what is currently at the article, Remind people from Irkutsk that this ain't a vote. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. No arguments for keeping in two weeks of dicussion. Michig (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Teel[edit]

Robert Teel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BLP. Man of varied interests, but doesn't appear to be notable for any of them. Looks a lot like WP:PEACOCK WP:VANITY. Uncategorised. No WP:RS. Possible WP:COI noting similarity between original author and subject. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's a bad sign when seven of the ext. links are about his horses and only one about him; and that one, according to the first reference, indicates this article is a WP:COPYVIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage about this horse owner. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studies related to Microsoft[edit]

Studies related to Microsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page has a collection of 5 generally unrelated studies:

• The IDC study is already in the Windows 2000 article.
• I don't think the Cybersource study is notable enough to be anywhere, but could be merged depending on consensus.
• Get the Facts should be merged into Windows Server 2003.
• The get the facts new campaing study should be deleted. It isn't really even a study, just a webpage put up by Microsoft to advertise IE8. Despite claims of critisism in the article, only one source is listed, and it is a personal blog.
• The Windows XP vs Windows ME study again does not seem notable to me (a study of just 36 people?), but if consensus determines it could be merged into Windows XP.

So, to sum up all this longwinded explanation, this article should be merged/deleted as appropriate, then the original article should be deleted. Millermk90 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... what an interesting article. I would have never thought a list of studies would be encyclopedic in its own right. I think instead, the various studies should be analyzed individually, for example if they end up criticizing Microsoft, then they should go to Criticism of Microsoft etc. i.e. I propose a merge to various other articles.--Coin945 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a loosely related conglomeration of stuff. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - random assortment of content. Neutrality^talk 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, I'll remove some more unreferenced or promotionally minded stuff from the article. Max Semenik (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aurobindo Pharma[edit]

Aurobindo Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The Artile is was created by sock puppet User:Projectmilap and has been blocked indefinitely. Also the artile is non referenced and raises major concern for wikipedia noteability criteria, the users are free to contribute and comment Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (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/2011 December 13. Snotbot  t • c »  06:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company appears to be notable based on its coverage in the financial press [2], particularly the Economic Times and the Hindu Business Line [3], and occasionally in the general press [4]. The article needs to have some references added, but AfD is not for cleanup if the subject is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The artile was created by spammer, please read the content, its truly not wikipedia standards, written like an advertisement, please see the artilce history and current draft! that is the reason for nomination.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck out the word "delete" from your comment. Since you are the one who nominated the article for deletion, your "delete" !vote is already on record, and you only get to "vote" once. Of course, you can comment as much and as often as you like. Just don't begin your comment with the word "delete". Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article as written has some problems. But that is not the criterion for "keep" or "delete". The question is whether the subject is notable or not. If the subject is notable, the article can be fixed. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There, I just cleaned up the article, deleted puffery/advertising, and added references. Now let's discuss whether the subject is notable - rather than the quality of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the above should be Comment as I already nominiated it Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Company is notable and listed on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. Jethwarp (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Important issue I want to raise is not about notability but sock puppet work User:Projectmilap and Nothing in the current article is with proper citation. The User who are willing to keep may consider contributing and adding references from where the information is coming. It raises a big concern of notability if the information references are not there in addition to stock puppets working for the company.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already added several references to the article, as noted above. Since then you have put "citation needed" tags on pretty much every sentence except the one I added. Please understand that just because the references could be improved, that is not a reason to delete the article. And even though the article was originally written by a banned sockpuppet, it has since been heavily edited by other users. That is not a reason to delete the article if the subject is notable. And this company is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is still in less than stellar shape but a quick search reveals what appears to me to be sufficient independent significat coverage in reliable sources to keep the article. One source currently cited provides that the company had a profit of 14 million US Dollars, so it appears to be a major company. Hekerui (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Conveyor system. Term seems to be used, valid redirect. Jujutacular ^talk 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airveyor[edit]

Airveyor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is basically an advertisement. - ComradeSlice^(talk) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (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/2011 December 13. Snotbot  t • c »  06:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. ComradeSlice suggests this is an advert, but if that's the case it's not a very good one since it *does not* mention any brand names or specific products. More likely it's just a badly written article. Keep, but rewrite / add more content. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PRODUCT. coverage is hardly indepth. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam. Stedrick (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Conveyor system. Biscuittin (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Plaza[edit]

Griffin Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Local shopping centre in regional town of New South Wales, no assertion of notability or significance. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: nothing whatsoever in major Australian news sites including Sydney Morning Herald [5], news.com.au [6], Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) [7], The Australian [8] and Ninemsn [9]. All of this suggests that the centre is incapable of demonstrating notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:ORG and WP:N per the above info on lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Spouse of the Philippines[edit]

Second Spouse of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possible original research. Google search of local newspapers and government agencies did not produce reliable source for this material. Article also admits that this is an informal title for the wife of the vice president of the Philippines Lenticel ^(talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Google Books and Google Scholar searches proved empty as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Second Lady of the United States says it's informal; how is this different? Dru of Id (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no comparison in the first place. Let's discuss articles on their own merits (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). I have no opinion on the general notability of the US version. What we should discuss is the lack of sources supporting the article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't have a problem with a summary of the VP's spouses of a large SE Asian country (and I don't have a problem with the article on the Second Lady in the US either). --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Legis. The VP in this nation of 100,000,000 people is more high-profile than that of a nation with 300,000,000 people. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the VP may be more high-profile (per Bearian's comment), but their wife/husband/partner/etc.? And this is wholly unreferenced, and after two weeks remains wholly unreferenced. Since a number of the people on the list are (I presume) living, we're wandering close to WP:UBLP territory. And even if that doesn't apply, the fact remains a that we have no evidence of most of these people being notable except by association with the veep - note the lack of articles for 8 of 15, and of those, seven are article-ified because they became first lady/gentleman at some point; the outlier is notable as being a mayor of a major city. Lists can include entries of things that aren't notable enough to be mentioined otherwise, but this strikes me as simply "hey, all these people are/were X". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A fairly detailed list, which makes for one stop shopping if an editor is searching for such information, rather than going from one VP article to another. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Some of the arguments for keeping are weak but even discounting these there is still consensus is that the sources identified do constitute sufficient independent coverage to establish notability. Michig (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Slobodian[edit]

Andrea Slobodian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Not a notable journalist. The sources offered are Sun Media press releases or not independant, non-trivial, reliable sources. Contributor claims to be affiliated with Sun Media, so COI as well. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person regularly appears on national TV as a reporter and as a commentator. That alone makes her notable. The sources are not only from Sun. It is ok to use primary sources for certain non-contentious items, as I have done. Also, I am not affiliated with Sun Media, and have never said so, please do not lie. It's annoying. --Rob (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please be sure to check the history of the article, before voting, as the nominator will repeatedly remove key points in the article. I ask content be kept to the conclusion of this AFD. Then, if it doesn't belong it will be deleted anyhow, and no harm is done. Obviously the nom feels none of the content belongs, so why pick out parts to remove, instead of just waiting to the end, where everything will be removed, if that's the consensus. --Rob (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator The original contributor claimed to be affiliated with the subject of this article or with Sun Media in a statement on my talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a typing mistake, and missed the word "not". I am NOT affiliated with Sun News, or the subject. My only meeting is the day I took her picture, when we were both at the same news event. --Rob (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, this isn't the one who posed as a Sunshine Girl. That would be at least noterity, if not notability --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Arguably too soon, but I have a soft spot for photogenic Canadians. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator Being a pretty girl is not notable. Sells papers, but isn't a basis for including in an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make comments like this, as they can be seen as a kind of soft insult and belittling of a person, in this context. Read the article, review the sources, look for more sources, check guidelines and precedent, and make your judgement. If it's delete, that's fine with me. But, this kind of comment really puts Wikipedia in a bad light. I expect the closing admin will disregard this "vote". --Rob (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Subject does not have independent coverage -- independent of Sun Media/Quebecor, in particular -- indicating notability per WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – See below for some independent coverage I found. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Per coverage in reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator Did you notice the publishers of most of those sources? Did you notice the "independent" part of "multiple, independent, reliable, significant" sources in the notability guideline? Of course Sun Media press releases get printed in all the Sun Media papers. GNG says ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."--Wtshymanski (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The only source that appears to possibly, but not necessarily be sourced from a press release is [14]. Can you further verify that the following are sourced from press releases [15], [16], [17]? The Hamilton Magazine.com link doesn't appear to be as such whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two blog posts, and one "by the way" sentence in an article about someone else entirely. These are not significant references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By way of contrast, Lloyd Robertson is a notable television journalist. Note that he's got an Order of Canada,and has anchored the nightly newscast for both national networks, and has been an overseas correspondent covering major news events. I don't know how important a talking head is, but he was at least notable. He has significant biographical coverage...the subject of the article at hand hasn't had time to build up any biography. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – From the Chrisd.ca website: "ChrisD.ca is a daily Winnipeg-based news publication dedicated to covering the city and southern Manitoba. Our team of photographers and editors scour the city to bring you the latest breaking news and current events. Having launched in the spring of 2008, ChrisD.ca has become a destination for Winnipeggers to get their news fix quickly and easily. We’re also one of the only media websites to report on the media themselves." While it appears to be a small organization, it does appear to have editorial integrity. As such, it does not appear to be a questionable source. Also, it does not appear that the content in the Chrisd.ca articles I cited above are derived from press releases whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – None of the sources I cited above are from public relations/marketing-style press releases. This link mentioned above as the only one being possibly sourced from a press release, [18] is not a "press release" vis-a-vis marketing or public relations, or sourced from such style of a press release. It is an article from the news agency Postmedia News that Global Winnipeg published, which provides objective articles to various news media outlets. They also appear to run the Canada.com news website. News agency articles are valid as reliable sources; the Associated Press is another example of a news agency. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep London Free Press is a reliable source. [19] Notable news sources repeating a press release, means they must think the information notable, or they wouldn't bother with it. Do they do that for every single show in existence? http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/14332/andrea-slobodian-global-winnipeg-shaw-tv-calgary/ is notable despite the word "blog" being in the address. Editorial oversight, paid staff, obviously a reliable source. Dream Focus 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are meant to be printed by papers. Papers like them because they are free and so they don't have to pay a writer to come up with actual research. Would someone please explain to me why this particular talking head is considered notable enoguh to be including in our Pokemon directory? She hasn't DONE anything yet. If we list every talking head on every cable network TV show, we're going to have a lot of very ephemeral personalities listed. Is this our encyclopediac purpose here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all that publicity is just because of becoming "co-anchor", isn't this a case of a single event? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The link provided above by User:Dream Focus, [20], is derived from QMI Agency, which is a news agency. Press releases from news agencies differ greatly from press releases that companies publish and disperse to market products and services. Another example of a well-known news agency is the Associated Press, whose articles are used very frequently in newspapers and other mass media worldwide. Press releases from news agencies that are used in mass media are valid as reliable sources, whereas those from companies' public relations and marketing departments used to market products and services generally aren't considered reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I get a letter to the editor published in the Times (pick your favorite Times), does that make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article? If my PR flack sends releases to *every single outlet in the world* and, due to boredom, a hole in the advertising layout, and a silly-season lack of real news, some of them are rash enough to print it, does that make me notable enough to appear in Wikipedia? Reliable sources, bless their hearts, sometimes fill the paper with trivia and filler on non-notable topics. This person is not notable enoguh for a Wikipedia article, especially when the references are so insubstantial in content. We don't even have a reference saying what month she was born in or when she graduated, let alone what substantial accomplishments she's made in the field. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – You're positing hypothetical ideas about public relations sources in general— none of the citations I posted are such, nor is the one posted above by User:Dream Focus. They also aren't letters to the editor. This may be misleading to other editors who read this AfD, discussing PR matters when the sources I cited just aren't. Hopefully others who may just skim AfD don't assume the sources are PR from this type of mischaracterization. Peace. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not extremely notable, but far more notable than a local-market new reporter. BTW, misogyny like this--"this isn't the one who posed as a Sunshine Girl"--irritates me greatly, and causes me to question the nominator's ability to make proper nominations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Davis Cup. Editors are free to merge relevant material from the edit history. Jujutacular ^talk 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Cup structure[edit]

Davis Cup structure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary content fork. The format of Davis Cup is already sufficiently explained in the main article Davis_Cup#Format, which is not overly long. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: this content already exists in Fed_Cup#Format:

Fed Cup structure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . MakeSense64 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - 100% agree that these have no place as separate articles in wikipedia. I'm not convinced though that these tables should simply disappear, as opposed to finding a place in the main articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the tables into the main articles. Makes the articles better imo. The table for Davis Cup dates back to 2010 and can probably be updated. That is often the problem with too many content forks, not everything is kept up to date. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No we just need this to go away into the delete bin or simply redirect it to the main articles since in essence they have now been merged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we need a redirect. Who is going to search for "Davis Cup structure"? I guess they will just search "Davis Cup". As for the Davis Cup table, maybe we can change it to a more generic formulation that we don't need to edit every year? That's what we have in the Fed Cup article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need the page but otherwise the edit history gets lost forever when deleted and that's generally frowned upon unless there are like 3 total edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much in the edit history given that this page has existed for 7 years. Most of the editing was just updating the current structure to current year. The Fed Cup structure page has even an shorter history. But if a redirect is deemed necessary, then I am OK with that. Redirects are cheap. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge back to Davis Cup Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christian Action Network. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Mawyer[edit]

Martin Mawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not-notable chairperson. Fails WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He is a major activist leader whose campaigns have received nationwide attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.6.52 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is so important, why does he score only 25.000 internet hits and 0 (zero) on Google News? And sorry, I can not see Fox News and their own website as reliable third party sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get 274 hits by clicking on the Google News link provided above. You seem to be looking only at the recent hits, rather than the archive. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; lack of significant secondary coverage. AV3000 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources found by the Google News archive and Google Books searches automatically linked by the nomination process demonstrate a very clear pass of the general notability guideline. There is an editorial decision to be made as to whether this should be merged with Christian Action Network, but that is a matter for normal editing and talk page discussion rather than anything requiring an admin to press the "delete" button. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christian Action Network. That organisation is (subject to its own AfD) apparently notable enough, but not massively notable. Being CEO of it doesn't make him sufficiently notable without more - we are not talking about an organisation like the American Red Cross or Medicins San Frontieres here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to Christian Action Network, per WP:BLP1E. Cavarrone (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christian Action Network, as it's apparently survived AfD - he doesn't have notability independent of his organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A passionate defense, but the consensus is clear.--Kubigula (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meyhem Lauren[edit]

Meyhem Lauren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear too meet the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The VV source in the article [21] is good. pretty good rundown of coverage at his webpage [22]. Includes scans & pdfs of numerous print sources like Juice, the graffiti mag Bombin', and illustration mag (i think? article seems focused on clothing) For What It's Worth, the bloggy but good (cited by NYT, The Atlantic, hiphopdx) unkut.com [23] , review by The Needle Drop [24], Clout mag interview [25] (About page) and a really nice piece @ t.r.o.y. that probably can't be used. [26] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)— 86.44.31.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - If he has so many good sources, why haven't they been added to the article? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't they been added to the article... by you? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not obliged to add sources to an article if I do not wish to, especially in areas I don't have any particular experience in. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your disinclination isn't a deletion rationale tho. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with the sources. Onus is on you to add them yourself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can't compel a volunteer to do work you're not interested in doing by threatening deletion. (i've already voluntarily done work you're not interested in doing. hence we all have some sources now. would you rather i didn't do this work?) also, either the subject is notable or it's not. do you have an opinion? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I can't compel someone to work on an article. But, nor can you. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because they don't meet WP:RS? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your opinion? If so, can you be more specific, or do you think they are uniformly bad? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... the issues are as follows: 1) [27] This one isn't bad, but it just lists Meyhem as one person in a list of others. It's something that could be used as a trivial source to back up claims, but lists like those don't generally show notability because it doesn't focus on any one person. 2) [28] This one links to his website, making it a primary source. Unless someone is considered to be an authority on a subject, you can't use anything that they or any of their agents put out. Being an authority would mean that there would be so many sources proving notability that citing Meyhem wouldn't be an issue, which isn't the case here. You could probably use it to find the actual sources, but I'd look at the articles to verify that they're the same before quoting them. (Hey, it's showbusiness. Everyone changes things to make themselves look good.) 3) [29] This one suffers from the same issues as the first link: it merely lists the album along with another one. It'd be good for a trivial source, but not as a reliable source. 4) [30] This one is sort of tricky and mostly has to do with the notability of the person doing the review. They do have an article here on Wikipedia, but it's tagged for notability. A review or article has to be done by a reliable person or group (Maxim, Vice, etc.) to be considered a reliable source. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't always mean that something is notable. It might just mean that someone hasn't gotten around to deleting the article yet. 5) [31] This one falls under the same problems as #4: it is dubious as to how notable Clout is. It's otherwise a good article, but the source has to be considered notable/reliable. The magazine is legit, but it's indie so those types of magazines are always debated as far as reliability goes. 6) [32] Blogs can't be used as reliable sources unless it's by someone incredibly notable. If I wrote a blog it wouldn't be able to be used, but if someone like Sean Combs, the editor of XXL, or even someone not in that genre of music like Justin Bieber were to write a blog about him, that could be used.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• It's a pretty strict guideline, unfortunately. Since Mayhem isn't released on what Wikipedia would consider a major label at this point in time, he can't get by on the major label part of WP:MUSICBIO. One thing I do want to comment on is that you should never expect people to add sources or facts for you. Always assume that no matter how many people you talk to, that we won't edit an article and that you'll be the only person who will edit the article at all. My reasoning behind this is that I've seen articles get created and then go YEARS without someone touching it, only for people to get upset when it comes up to deletion, wondering why nobody added sources. While you didn't create the article, always assume that no other editors will do the work after you leave the page. Sometimes people will go without adding or editing anything for various reasons, ranging from not having anything to add to simply being too exhausted and/or uninterested to do anything. Now don't go crazy, expecting that they won't edit anything that's obviously wrong, but always assume that your electronic hands will be the last one to handle the article. That said, you might want to look into seeing if the original owner wants to incubate this article until reliable sources can be found showing that Mayhem passes music notability guidelines. If she or he won't, then I recommend signing up for an account and userfying it yourself. (WP:USERFY) Hopefully some of all this can help explain the policies and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Thanks, but i didn't mean to give the impression i'm not clear on the policies. I am. You misunderstand my linking to meyhem's press page. That lists independent coverage, as i (partially) detailed above. Your rundown has therefore skipped four articles in three print sources. Your rundown also misunderstands what constitutes non-trivial coverage. To see this is so, compare the significant treatment you call trivial to the examples of triviality in the guideline. These are not lists, but rather the act is not the sole subject of the articles. You come to no conclusion, as far as i can tell, on Clout and The Needle Drop. I have no plans to edit the article. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no plans on editing the article then don't be surprised when it gets deleted. An AfD is more than just throwing sources out there. You also have to add them to the article or it will be brought up to AfD again even if it manages to get kept. My point is that if you really want to have the article kept, WORK ON IT rather than trying to get others to do it for you.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79

Nowhere have i tried to get others to do it for me, although now you mention it it's an idea not without merit in the spirit of collaboration. Anyone bringing an article back to AfD should check previous discussion. i'm content to demonstrate notability. AfD is not for problems that can be fixed through normal editing. The insistence that i work on the article while an AfD is ongoing merely because i find it notable is a low sort of blackmail, and the implication that my doing such work would cause !votes to switch to Keep rather exposes the problem with this line of thinking. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was just to say that if you're going to put this much work into trying to save it, the best way to save it is to add the sources to the article and flesh it out. Unfortunately there's going to be a lot of people who decide based on the way the article looks and there's a lot of people who do their own searches and base their decisions off of that as well as on what is in the article. They might not lend as much weight to things mentioned in the AfD and not put in the article, thinking that they aren't usable for whatever reason. It'd be nice if people were to be more meticulous, but sometimes they aren't. My intention wasn't to blackmail, but to say that pretty much you can't expect or rely on anyone else to do anything on an article unless it's on an article that's so big and so mainstream that it has a huge amount of editors monitoring it. Trust me, I've learned that point the hard way. I've also learned that listing things in an AfD doesn't always mean that people will listen to them or even put them on the article. I've listed references in the past and left it up to others to add them, only for people to ignore them and then the article gets deleted. Maybe the sources weren't reliable, maybe they were. The point is that I didn't do the work myself and nobody did it for me and there's a chance that my lack of work might have kept the article from being kept. I know that on the times where I have found the sources and added them to the article rather than to the AfD, I've had a higher rate of those articles being kept. I'm just telling you what I've discovered through my own past experiences, is all. If you want an article to be kept, work on it. Sometimes a well laid out article with good resources can work miracles. If you don't want to do it then nobody's really forcing you to. Just from my experience, a lack of action can lead to articles being deleted and I've seen some articles and images that I've created and uploaded deleted because I didn't work on them and I assumed that others would.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate. I looked at the sources provided in the article and in this AfD, and what I could find on my own. In balance, I just don't think that the notability is there yet, but it could be in the near future (say, a year), hence "incubate" rather than "delete". Happy to look at additional sourcing, now or in the future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So your position is that, to pick two, [33] & [34] does not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The interview in Juice and his inclusion in the list from the blog on the Village Voice are useful and help the case but are not enough by themselves. When you say "to pick two", you imply that there is plenty more of this quality (in both substance and WP:RS), but is there yet? The Clout and Needle Drop refs you mention above are also of use, but I don't think there's enough there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I don't think you've explained why you think by themselves they are not enough, since you seem to agree they constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, though as you say they are not by themselves. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All I see is unreliable sources; because of that, the content is not verifiable and notability cannot be established. Pol430 talk to me 15:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you figure? You seem unique in finding the Village Voice and Juice sources unreliable, and it's hard to believe you've done a shred of research into any source presented. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're so deadset on arguing those sources are good enough, put your money where your mouth is and add them to the article as sources yourself. Stop trying to force us to do it or arguing that it should be kept because of the potential sources. That's not how things work. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• i've never tried to force anyone to do it. the sources are actual. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then put them in the article. AfD can only assess what is presently in the article, not what could potentially go in the article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No. If you have no view to express on the notability of the subject, please use Talk for any further correspondence. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, 86.44. Put them in the article if you think they can prove his notability. What I said above holds true - we don't judge an article on it's potential notability; we judge it on what's been proven. And there is precedent for AfDs to reverse course if they've been edited to address concerns raised in the nomination during the course of it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have reverted my delete close on this, which was preformed 1 Jan. I invite further discussion and !votes. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Like others, I find the heap of blog posts and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources, and I'm quite comfortable with WP:MUSICBIO setting a relatively high notability bar which procludes every unknown indie auteur with a mixtape. WP:V is also quite explicit and quite clear that sources cannot merely be alleged, but must be produced in the article in order to sustain it, while deletion policy is likewise quite clear that the onus is on editors who wish to save an article to produce the evidence necessary to do so. The curious disinclination of the single Keep proponent to improve the article doesn't fill me with confidence that the article is likely to be improved in the future. Ravenswing 10:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  re WP:V, if you wish to challenge statements in the article, do so! preferably on the talk page, i.e. thru the normal editing process. re wp:del, not sure what you're citing, but evidence has been produced. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More correctly, you find the heap of blog posts, print sources and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources. Why you do not say. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources not included as citations in article are irrelevant to this discussion, particularly since supporters haven't added any during the several weeks that the AfD notice has been up. Single source cited in article (VV blog entry) isn't enough: it falls short of "significant coverage", listing article's subject as one of five artists to watch but not covering him in any real depth; and it seems more to speculate on his future notability than to confirm his notability at the time of writing. Since it's been 11 months and that future notability apparently hasn't eventuated, we must assume that the prophecy of notability has fizzled out. Ammodramus (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are what confirm wiki-notability, whether or not they speculate as to subject's future. If they do, that is itself notable and significant. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a load of bung. New York Times could speculate all they want as to Ralph Nader's chances to become President of the United States; it would be flatly dishonest to present the article as if he is already notable for being such. And why are you so hesitant to add the sources yourself? I'm genuinely perplexed that you would defend the article yet not do a damn thing to improve it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this has been listed for three weeks without any improvement. I see no evidence of notability by any measure. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nomination withdrawn by nominater. Sadads (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wettest County in the World (novel)[edit]

The Wettest County in the World (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not finding cites, they are making a movie but at this time, for this BOOK, I don't see enough references to demonstrate it is notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep If a book is being made into a movie, it needs a wikipedia entry.21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm suspecting that there's more potential sourcing for the book on which a movie is based, so I've tagged it for rescue. Failing enough sources, I wonder if merging the film and book would be a better idea than an outright deletion? Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added reliable sources, and there is also a Kirkus review and a Publisher's weekly, which suggests that the book was picked up pretty broadly, Sadads (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep request by nom I found the NY Times review for the book, which is plenty enough. Not sure how I missed it the first time, but no harm, no foul. Withdrawing nomination, please close as speedy keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I withdraw my AfD nomination, with my apologies. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Tasmin Little[edit]

Tasmin Little (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This subject passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Notability within this BLP seems to be supported in part by allmusic.com, a source that is not reliable enough to base notability (see here). Otherwise, rather substantial coverage in the local Chad seems based heavily in publicity for an upcoming concert, and the Telegraph interview actually seems to cover a festival promoted by this subject, with most discussion about someone else entirely. A nomination for a biennial music award called "Musician of the Year" certainly does not on its own establish any notability. Though this might approach WP:BASIC requirements, I believe they fall short of demonstrating notability; the fact that this musician doesn't pass at all under WP:MUSICBIO, the most relevant BLP guideline, is particularly indicative of a musician's lack of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 20:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has had to be stubbed down because of a copyright violation which is why the current version doesn't explain the notability very well, but she has won a Classical Brit award [35] which I would have thought would qualify as a major music award per WP:MUSICBIO. For coverage, she was the subject of an episode of The South Bank Show [36], and has coverage from several mainstream news sources [37][38][39] [40][41][42], including widespread coverage of her decision to release her album free [43][44][45][46][47] [48][49][50], and there are reviews in GNews. January (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – Per the extensive availability of reliable sources posted by User:January above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Sufficient independent coverage provided by January. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the claim that allmusic.com is "a source that is not reliable enough to base notability" is not shown by the link given. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harpreet Khattar[edit]

Harpreet Khattar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a student that does not demonstrate his notability. He started a small company while at college, but there is no evidence this is a notable company. He claims to have won several national and international competitions, but the only evidence for this shows his team came third in a local competition. He did rank 4th. in another student competition, but this appear to be a non-notable prize which he didn't win and the only reference is a passing mention in a local newspaper. Winning "best student of the year" at high school isn't notable. So the only claims that comes close to demonstrating notability are thin, and I don't think they pass WP:BIO. Prod contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - No notability in references, the awards won are not notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable student's autobiography. Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) HurricaneFan25 — 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Girl's Confession[edit]

One Girl's Confession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for films. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Delete per the above.Nofatlandshark (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:NF. Released wayyyyy pre-internet in 1953, the film was directed by Hugo Haas and starred Cleo Moore. We do not expect continued modern coverage for a film that had wide theatrical release 58 years ago. But even today, sources are available that speak of the film in a less-than-trivial fashion, and in context to that director and actresses' careers.[51][52] And beyond sources which may be used to imprve the article, its later televsion airings and DVD release[53] push at the attribute consideration of it being given a given a commercial re-release more than 5 years after original release. The project is better served by improving demonstrably notable topics, and not through deletion because they might need work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: While I would normally consider the above sources trivial coverage, I think that is enough for a film released in 1953. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable film, no effort to obtain Variety and Motion Picture Herald reviews that I can see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepAS It passes WP:NOTFILM and WP:V. Cavarrone (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prestige (disambiguation). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige[edit]

Prestige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is basically a term that is better suited for Wiktionary. While sources may be found on it, its likely not to have much more that wouldn't be found in a dictionary. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic content. We have Wiktionary for dictionary content. ∞陣内Jinnai 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• agree wiktionary is proably a better place.Nofatlandshark (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Prestige (disambiguation) per DICTDEF. The page gives only a definition, and seem unlikely to become more than that. Cnilep (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable enough for its own article per wp:notdic. Redirect to Prestige (disambiguation) or wikt:prestige. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) HurricaneFan25 — 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Illusions Sdn. Bhd.[edit]

Imaginative Illusions Sdn. Bhd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this company exists, I cannot find sufficient independent substantive RS coverage to indicate notability per wp standards. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Per coverage in reliable sources:

• Lim Eng Hooi, John (August 14, 1997). "Rewarding Net Findings for Local Game Developer". New Straits Times. Retrieved December 20, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Chia Hiang, Huong (June 29, 1997). "Home Computing: Local Touch in Vanguard Ace". New Straits Times. Retrieved December 20, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as references have been found. Good work as always Northamerica1000. Dream Focus 07:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article is about notable company that has being referenced above. - WPSamson (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned Band Review[edit]

Unsigned Band Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find sufficient independent RS coverage of this service. Created by an SPA. The article has zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's rationale. There has been plenty of time since creation, no refs, no indication of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless find more references.Nofatlandshark (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complete lack of reliable sources is a strong argument for deletion. If the creator or someone else would like the article to be userfied so they can work on it, leave a message at my talk page. Hut 8.5 16:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clock tower association[edit]

Clock tower association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable university organization. I was unable to find Googlenews hits for this organization, tho if 'Clock tower association' is an English translation of the organizations name I could see the issue. Page creator shares a name with the 'Patron in Chief' of the organization. Syrthiss (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am cautious about deleting foriegn not-for-profits, especially when it may just be weak article writing at fault, but I struggle to see necessary notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone who speaks that language will have to search for information. No way to tell one way or the other until that happens. Dream Focus 17:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Sources or gone. It's the creator's problem to address this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The description is so generic that it's not even possible to tell what the organization does. "The main objective of organization was coordination with the students and provision of support"? With no sources, others can't help improve this article. Anything here worth keeping can be added to HITEC University#Student societies. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspend The article is under creation and it is not completed, You can suspend it temporarily so that it go online after the resolution of your issues. It is correct that I am founder of this organization but that doesn't mean I created it for advertisement only. If so then you can ask me to remove those portion containing information about me. It was started just as a student organization within a University but now it is spreading in other universities of Pakistan i.e. UET and IIUI. The other objection that it hasen't authentic references is correct but it was not having online resources. I will upload the resources and then add their reference for review. Nisar Ahmed Rana 00:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisar Ahmed Rana (talk • contribs)
• Suspend Suspend the AfD while the article is completed. Some of the objections have already been corrected, and other problems might well be corrected in the near term. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the page is new and continuously building (Last edit was made on December 23) therefore, I think creator should give time to improve the page. As far as organization is concerned, being a student of HITEC University Taxila Cantt, I've seen this organization's contribution towards co-curricular activities which is I think superb because university is new, Organization is new and they are doing tremendous job and building the future of nation. Za zealot (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've had a month and there are no external references. The idea of "time to finish copywriting" is reasonable, if this were a question of quality, but the issue here is that there's no external sourcing. It doesn't take long to fix that, if it's fixable. As it hasn't been done, my suspicion is that it can't and won't be done, no matter how long we leave it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspend The article is still under creation. It is not fair to the author to delete this. It is also a remarkable organisation that deserves recognition on Wikipedia. --Rubinkumar (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Ebeid Films[edit]

Anis Ebeid Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this film/video company, which is an orphan article. Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article about a company that subtitles films and is not the subject of reliable coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a directory. Stedrick (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Page currently linked from main page: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure Jujutacular ^talk 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il[edit]

Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article smacks of recentism, and quite obviously should be deleted (and perhaps a bit merged in to Kim Jong-il, though what is there likely will suffice). I expect an outcry of outrage on this AfD that this is the most important article in the universe and that I must be crazy, with links to lots and lots of news sources. But the fact of it is that the article is almost entirely "Reactions" which aren't notable in any sense of the manner. Ask yourself if you think this article should exist in a year (it shouldn't) and I'm confident even if you all insist on keeping it now, it will be gone by then. Prodego ^talk 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Yup... You've got to be fucking kidding me. The death of Kim Jong-il has been a major topic in International Relations for years, and it has important implications in Northeast Asia. This article is recent, but will clearly have much more cited information than can reasonably fit in the main Kim Jong-il article. This article will be even more relevant in a year as the power struggle within the DPRK government plays out. Embarrassing AfD. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – to keep the main article from becoming too big, per WP:SIZESPLIT. The main article is currently 70K, so this article is within the guideline. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC):*[reply]

• Only because of the reactions section though. Prodego ^talk 18:47, 20 December 2011 (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/2011 December 20. Snotbot  t • c »  18:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The article is linked from the main page and should not be at AFD per WP:SK. 62.16.136.89 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Heroes. His death has been analyzed for years due to the political and military implications of his unique country. The article will eventual expand on the impact of his death. The process has just started. If this should be completely overblown, I'd say go for an AfD then. As of now, the failure of certain countries to know prior to the announcement could be added.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as consonant with other figures of Kim's stature. See, for example, Funeral of JFK, Funeral of Edward VII, and Death and funeral of Leonid Brezhnev, to cite only a tiny portion of the massive number of perfectly reasonable Wiki articles whose subject is the death or laying to rest of major personages. The nearly month-long activities occupying a sovereign nation to commemorate Kim's death are surely notable enough. If you think the article as it stands is not sufficiently researched, improve it, don't delete it. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To allay the nominator's fears: I am not outraged, nor do I think this is the most important article in the universe, nor do I think the nominator must be crazy. We just have a difference of opinion about this WP entry. Just because this article details a recent, ongoing event doesn't mean it qualifies for deletion as recentism. This death and funeral are notable world events, and as Citizen Sunshine noted, there is a clear precedent for this type of article. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Nicely done piece. Not mergeable to Kim Jong-il due to length, not a fork but a subpage of that. The list of country-by-country responses should be more than adequate to demonstrate lasting significance of the event. Nominator's speculation ''Ask yourself if you think this article should exist in a year (it shouldn't) and I'm confident even if you all insist on keeping it now, it will be gone by then." is highly unlikely, although there is certainly room to believe that the nature of the piece will evolve over time, as things do at WP. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Fastily (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OC Music Magazine[edit]

OC Music Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No notability established in article and does not pass GNG; only references are to the magazine; COI:article created by DnSachs - founder of magazine is David N. Sachs GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visayas Typhoon Center[edit]

Visayas Typhoon Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

i am nominating this for deletion as it is an unremarkable typhoon tracking centre who has had no independent coverage and is trying to get some publicity from us. It would probbably meet G7 as it is an unremarkable typhoon season but i felt it best to bring it to an AFD. Jason Rees (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Can't find sources for this site. Oh by the way, can someone look-up List of weather websites in the Philippines? Looks like a link farm to me--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Agreed, though the first 5 are ones id point people towards to get info from.Jason Rees (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it seems like a hoax. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's clear from the discussion below that a pretty extensive search for references has not produced evidence of notability. The only argument for retention is an assertion that all members of the Iranian royal family are notable which conflict with WP:NRVE. Hut 8.5 13:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Pahlavi[edit]

Cyrus Pahlavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not inherited. He is just the grandson of Shah's sister. It is not clear where or when he was born or if his grandmother's brother was still in power in Iran or not (Please Note that after 1979 Iranian revolution, the monarchy system was replaced by a republic one). AMERICOPHILE 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Iranian royal family is minimally of historical interest to some persons, even though it was displaced three decades ago, or so. Nofatlandshark (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per availability of reliable sources. Perhaps more can be added to the article. Here's three I added:

• "Keeping Up... With Youth". The Spokesman-Review. December 16, 1978. Retrieved December 20, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Associated Press (September 13, 1980). "Iran Exiled Government Planned for Shah's Son". The Press-Courier. Retrieved December 20, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Bush, G.M. (February 14, 1983). "2,000 Marchers Seek Overthrow of Khomeini". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 20, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but none of them is about Cyrus Pahlavi. What you have added is about Crown Prince Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, the Shah's son. We are not talking about the Shah's son but about his sister's grandson. AMERICOPHILE 03:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification, I removed the above references from the Cyrus Pahlavi article. I rescind my "keep" !vote above per this error. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have searched for reliable sources covering Cyrus Pahlavi in detail and found only one relevant result—a passing mention. As Americophile (talk · contribs) states above, the sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) are not even about this Pahlavi. The subject fails WP:BIO. Goodvac (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A prince in any nation is notable. They are notable because of their position, not because of who they are related to. Dream Focus 14:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Remember to look for Persian sources as well as English! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a native speaker of Persian myself. I searched the web but unfortunately nothing important was found. The only Persian source about him is the fawp article that is itself a translated text from enwp article. AMERICOPHILE 00:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to confirm, did you search any of the following, in English, Persian, French, or other languages?

• Google Books
• Google News
• Google Scholar
• Research databases of US/Western universities, like EBSCOHost Academic Search Complete, JSTor, LexisNexis, etc.

• If you don't have access, I do have access to some, so I can search these if you like

• Any academic research databases used in Iran
• "Archives" sections of websites of Iranian newspapers
• If you know an Iranian newspaper did an article on him, but don't have access to the newspaper database, see if you can get a microfilm at the area library

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I did the following searches:

EBSCOHost Acdemic Search Complete: "Cyrus Pahlavi" = 0 results

Jstor: "Cyrus Pahlavi" = 0 results

Google Books - Does have some matches - but they seem to be about "Reza Cyrus Pahlavi"

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, it is the duty of users seeking to keep article to provide reliable sources; those seeking to delete it are not required to show that sources cannot be found but since improving an article is definitely better than trying to delete it and to show my good faith, I will search Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar in both Persian and English but my search would be restricted to online search (the problem is that there are lots of more important topics to spend time on them rather than wasting my/your time because of a person who has done nothing important and is just a member of former Iranian royal family). AMERICOPHILE 07:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately nothing was found. AMERICOPHILE 07:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay - I didn't find anything either WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gogameri Cricket Club[edit]

Gogameri Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Would nominate for speedy were it not for the vague claims of "a great history" and such. But please, feel free to vote speedy if you think I'm in error. This is non-notable sports club for which even the article creator readily admits no newspaper coverage exists. Also note a history of deletion at Gogameri Cricket Club, Ajeetpura. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no sources either. A look on the page creators user talk has this reason for the page creation: "I had created a page about this club in the past also but you people deleted that because I couldn't prove how the club was notable." The user does nothing to satisfy the criteria of WP:N. "But this time I have a good reason to tell you. Look, this is a great club of this region, that's why it deserves a name for it self on the Wikipedia." The user seems to be under the impression because he thinks it is "great" it merits inclusion. Lastly he himself admits there is no coverage! "You might not find it in newspapers or somewhere else because the clubs from small towns don't make it to the big stage". "I think that's enough to prove the importance of the club"... no, no it isn't unfortunately as you don't satisfy any of the inclusion criteria. Not sure if the past article creation dating back to 2008 merits speedy? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I too am finding no sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Misérables (2012 film)[edit]

Les Misérables (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:NFF which says. "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". This film has not even completed assembling a cast, let alone started production. In the event that this film does get off the ground, the release date is at least a year away. AussieLegend (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are a lot of big names attached to this film and it has a release date. In addition this page contains a lot of useful information. JDDJS (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Pretty much the same reasons as above, including it has numerous references and citations to support the information. Evilgidgit (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is enough sourcing to warrant an article. Now, should the film be shelved, i suggest automatic redirection. It saves time for everyone, rather than deleting it and re-making it prior to filming. RAP (talk) 2:46 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• In response to the above, WP:NFF further says "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." That the article may contain "a lot of useful information" is not justification, under any policy or guideline, for retention. A lot of deleted articles contained useful information but they were still deleted. A scheduled release date a year away is not a guarantee that the date will not be pushed back as has happened so many times. "It saves time for everyone, rather than deleting it and re-making it prior to filming" completely ignores WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but deleting an article because it's not notable yet is a no-no. RAP (talk) 14:54 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when? Articles about non-notable subjects are deleted all the time. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blantant waste of time. For the creator of the article whose research is flushed down the toilet, and waste of time to other editors when they need to recreate the article when they can just take the redirect and undo it and work from there. RAP (talk) 17:53 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a "waste of time" is never a reason to retain an article. If it was, there'd be no reason for AfD because we'd never delete an article. In any case, redirection as suggested by Nymf doesn't delete the content so the "waste of time" argument doesn't apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any "research" needn't be "flushed down the toilet". It could be incubated, moved to userspace, or, if redirected, held elsewhere (and preserved in version history). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we're doing here is trying to ascertain whether this subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Deleting an article because it's not notable is not a "no-no", in fact completely the opposite. ALL articles that are not notable should not be here on Wikipedia! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NFF. Nymf _hideliho! 07:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• One Keep More. NFF is a guideline, not a policy, and we should remember that it is not a hard and fast rule as a result. There is always the occassional exception, and I think this qualifies as one of them. There is more than enough coverage from independant third-party sources in this article for it to meet the requirements of WP:N, the overarching policy that supercedes the numerous project-specific guidelines. At the end of the day, NFF is there to stop the creation of articles on films that nobody has ever heard of and have never been discussed in reliable sources, or on films that have simply been announced as in creation with few (if any) other details announced for months - if not years - to come. This film is none of that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is not an "overarching policy", or a policy at all; it too is a guideline and it is a general guideline. The specific guideline that affects this movie is WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFF is to stop the creation of premature articles for films which may or may not get made. It is very specific when it states that any film can face obstacles, no matter how big or small, and is here to prevent creation of articles like this one, not just "films that nobody has ever heard of". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but even WP:NFF grants that even the topic of a failed film project could be found notable through application of guideline. Being "not-yet-a-film" is not the determining factor here. Being "of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" and having persistant and in-depth comentary and analysis over a many-years period is of greater import. NFF seeks to address non-notable film topics and would have greater bearing had this been some unknown or little-covered topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But, if this film is not made, then the failure would not be sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually that assertion is untrue, as the determining factor for notability, even for a failed project, would be if the topic had/has enough coverge in reliable sources and over an extended period of time to be seen as worthy of note. If this topic somehow did not have such coverage, it would be understandably non-notable even after a speculated failure to be completed. But as the topic already has the multiple high-level coverage over an extended period of time, we have a teasonable arguement toward notability now... and even were it to be announced as permanently shelved tomorow... but we do not even have a hint of such happening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:N > WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does a general guideline have greater weight than a project specific guideline? Project specific guidelines are created to cater for situations that aren't addressed by the general guideline. This is just such a case and NFF is clear. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Why does a general guideline have greater weight than a project specific guideline?" - You've answered your own question. NFF states "...unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", with the last two words linking back to WP:N. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section of NFF that you've quoted refers to "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video)", which doesn't apply to this article because the movie hasn't even finished casting, let alone commenced filming. NFF summarised says that films should not have their own articles until they are released unless they've started filming and the production is notable. We have to apply both NFF and WP:N here. When we do, it's clear this movie shouldn't have an article. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As an aside, WP:FUTFILM makes for interesting reading. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:Planned films is interesting as well, and perhaps more cogent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed, but what we should be looking at here is whether this film demonstrates an exception to the notability guideline. In my view, it does not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I respect your opinion, and I am quite willing to opine a delete for anticiapted films if coverage, commentary, analysis, and sourcing is limited or lacking... and it is my own determination per policy and guideline is that this one has the extended and persistant coverage over a many-years period to merit being one of those exceptions, much as The Hobbit (film project) did. It is through such discussions as this that reasonable exceptions are determined. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meeting the policy and guideline. The SNG WP:NF (and its sub-section NFF) is, like all guidelines, headed by "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (see WP:FFEXCEPTIONS). While application of NFF is always being debated when we see an obvious meeting of WP:GNG for a film that is close to principle filming, we may also consider that discussion of the topic of a film's production tis allowed through policy to be discussed if properly sourced... and that WP:N itself states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline" and "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice". It is through discussions such as these that reasonable and common sense exceptions are considered, and we do not blindly adhere to NFF if doing so prevents improving the encyclopedia. Just as User:AussieLegend observes above, NFF is not a policy. So we may treat an anticipated event per policy and guideline and ask ourselves if the topic under discussion has the in-depth and persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period of time so as to be determinable as "worthy of note"? See WP:Planned films. And while per policy we might consider a merge and reirection to either Tom Hooper (director)#Studio films and development projects or Les Misérables (musical)#Film adaptation, we have so much sourced information that doing so would overbuden the possible targets. Hence, an exception to NFF is also a reasonable consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it really overburden anything else? At the moment, it reads like a list of press releases, which could be tightened to a single paragraph. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect until production actually starts per WP:NFF. As it's just a list of press releases, it fails WP:N which states that "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage". As this has been in development for 20-30 years, with various other directors attached over the years, there's nothing to stop it being in development for another 20 years. If Wikipedia had been around in 1990, people then would have been saying "look - it has a director and a cast and everything - this film will be made." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this film gets shelved then you can immediately redirect it. But that is very unlikely. In the mean time there is a lot of important information that is properly sourced that is in the article that should be kept. JDDJS (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And even in guessing it gets shelved, NFF specifically grants that a production can be found notable per the guidelines even if the film is never made or made and never distributed. Above your comment, User:Robsinden observes "this has been in development for 20-30 years, with various other directors attached over the years, there's nothing to stop it being in development for another 20 years". This conjectural statement seems to walk hand-in-hand with guideline acknowledging that persistent and indepth analysis and comentary about a topic over a many years period shows that topic as being worthy of notice per our guidelines... notability being determined through the sourcable and verifiable coverage OF the topic over a many-years period.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there is no "persistent and indepth analysis", just a list of casting announcements! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A list? What I am reading is sourced prose offering sourced discussion about the prospects for success or failure of this future project and whether some development will occur. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument is arse-about-face. It should be redirected until it becomes a film, or becomes notable enough in its own right. To say that it should only be redirected if it is not made admits that it wouldn't be notable if it isn't made - therefore it isn't notable now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is your opinion then of policy specifically allowing we may have an article on an anticipated event if "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred"? Is it that you are asserting that the topic does somehow not have sufficiently wide interest and coverage in many sources and over an extended period of time? Or is it that you're asserting that the topic demonstrated as meeting the standards set by WP:N does somehow not meet those standards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note There was a similar discussion about The Avengers (2012 film). That ended in no consensus. Interestingly, less than a month after the AFD closed, there was a DYK about it. I know about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and everything, but I think that it is worth a mention that another film became a DYK before filming started. JDDJS (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more cogent comparison might be the articles The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again... spun out of the years-older The Hobbit (film project) itself created because persisitant on ongoing commentary and analysis of the topic over many years allowed the welcome existance of an article on a "future" event of "sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument works for The Hobbit because there was significant coverage. There is no significant coverage here. "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage". There is no critical analysis here, just a list of casting reports. If we're referring to this article, a good comparison is with what happened with Paradise Lost - it survived an AfD, then was put on hold a couple of days later, so was redirected. This demonstrates that the article wasn't sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article. Neither is this one. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough sources are warranted for the article to be kept. I also agree with the concerns by Michael Q. Schmidt; it meets both WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Plenty of references that demonstrate notability to pass WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - there is no significant coverage - see above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes there is. The article is meeting WP:SIGCOV; I see plenty of references from such sources as BBC, The Sun, and EW, and these are not trivial mentions. That means there is significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of whether or not there may be significant coverage, the existence of this article ignores WP:FUTFILM and WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NF and the sub-guidelines you have mentioned assist in determining notability when significant coverage is lacking. In this case, significant coverage has been proven earlier (see my above comment). This sentence is taken directly from the general notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You need to actually read WP:NFF, especially WP:NFF#General principles, which references WP:GNG. It goes to the trouble of saying "Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article". WP:GNG is the basis of determining notability, but NFF and WP:FUTFILM specifically address whether or not film-related articles should exist, even if the topic meets the basic requirements of GNG. WP:FUTFILM specifically states "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines." Following that requirement, this article should not exist. You can't just cherry-pick which guideline you want to follow, you need to look at the applicability of all of them. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did read the guidelines! Never assume. Also, the sentence extracted from WP:NFF you provided is inaccurate, it in fact says Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article BASED ON CONSENSUS. Consensus is that keeping, not deleting, is required here. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The important part is the part I quoted, "Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article", but you are correct, it does also say "based on consensus." Even though there is significant coverage, which is what you based your keep vote on, significant coverage alone doesn't guarantee that an article should exist. There needs to be more than simply compliance with GNG, at lest for film related articles, which is my point. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • If the consensus created here through other's aplication of policy and interpretation of guideline shows this topic as worthy of notice, it will become one of those accepted exceptions to the NF's sub-section NFF. What must be remembered is that each guideline is headed "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." No guideline is absolutely immutable. We do not adhere to them blindly if doing so prevents improving Wikipedia. What is cogent is policy specifically allows that we may have an article on an anticipated event: The "subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Is it your assertion that the topic does not have sufficiently wide interest to merit an article had the event already ocurred? And with coverage in many sources and over an extended period of time, is it your assertion that the topic demonstrated by others as meeting the standards set by WP:N does somehow not meet those standards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruk Asres[edit]

Bruk Asres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It is not possible to verify that this person has played in a FIFA "A" international match (the match referenced in the article was not an official match) or at a fully-professional level. All coverage of this person appears to be general coverage of the 12 people who sought assylum and only the most trivial mention (his name) is made. Earlier attempts at speedy deletion and proposed deletion were declined primarily because it was asserted that he's played for Eritrea (although no one has verified that he's played an official match). Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a source confirms he played at the 2009 CECAFA Cup, unless I'm reading it wrong...? GiantSnowman 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the match against Zimbabwe was not an official match (its not listed at FIFA's website) because Zimbabwe was an invited guest team and did not bring their official side. Jogurney (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) As a follow up, FIFA reports that Eritrea played in three "A" internationals during 2009 - against Rwanda, Somalia and Tanzania - and I can only find a match report for the Tanzania match (Asres did not play in that one). There is a possibility that he played against Rwanada or Somalia, but I have no way of verifying it. Jogurney (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also not listed at NFT, which only lists official A-matches. GiantSnowman 17:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability from either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Having never played in a fully pro league, or a recognised international match, this article fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for it pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 16:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gifted But Twisted[edit]

Gifted But Twisted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. No independent, reliable press coverage. An IP removed the prod, claiming "Gifted But Twisted in a well established underground punk band, they have over 2.5 million views on youtube and have sold close to 300,000 songs on itunes, therefore deserving a wikipedia page" but obviously neither of those claims signifies notability. TM 16:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 16:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two-node cluster[edit]