The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mukilteo School District. Tone 22:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mukilteo Elementary School[edit]

Mukilteo Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Res ipsa loquitur. Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to its school district, Mukilteo School District. The school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to its school district, Mukilteo School District, per well-established standard practice for the overwhelming majority of elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mukilteo School District according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is not the case that all elementary schools are notable per wp standards. Quite the opposite--the normal course is to redirect, as editors have indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to school district per the normal procedure; not notable. Lagrange613 15:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect; fails the GNG. I would strongly contest Luciferwildcat's suggestion that all schools are notable. bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 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 Lansing School District. Redirecting to the school district per the standard procedure. Note that the school district article doesn't mention this school yet, if it's desired to merge content that can be done from the article history (and don't forget to attribute in the diffs when doing so). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Averill Elementary School[edit]

Averill Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article with zero refs, on an elementary school, which does not appear to be especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to city or school district, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lansing, Michigan or school district according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is not the case that all elementary schools are notable per wp standards. Quite the opposite--the normal course is to redirect, as editors have indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With response to Purplebackpack89, Wikipedia is not just for important things. If someone wants to make an article about a piece of paper, and writes it according to the guideline, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this.

I tried to add some references, but I couldn't find anything. Since this is a verified school (to check, go to Lansing School District's website), could we just hold off on the deletion for a little bit? I agree with Luciferwildcat, if we merge this in, who would want to help it grow?

Salzeroo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Your comment does not seem to address how this article could be considered notable under wp standards. The fact that you yourself could not find any references simply supports a deletion determination; not the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, since I'm pretty new here, I didn't realize that it had to be notable per wp standards. Sure, I would support a Merge or a Delete. Sorry.

Salzeroo (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a second look, and welcome to the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to school district per the normal procedure; not notable. Welcome, Salzeroo! Lagrange613 15:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect; I think it falls short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Truthsort (talk) 00:38, 29 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. Hut 8.5 12:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Keeley[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)).

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

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

BLP of a "new" actor. Searching for independent coverage I find a lot of social media and similar hits. Two brief mentions associating his name with his character in a just released movie. Thinking this is a case of WP:TOOSOON but I wanted to get the community's consensus. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though Sam Keeley is a relatively 'New' Actor, he has not only quite a fan following, but has appeared in a large enough quantity of projects that should automatically qualify him for a wikipedia page. Information about his work is on his imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4187130/ and his agency profile : http://www.lisarichards.ie/actorsm/sam-keeley-actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Six roles is hardly an enormous quantity of projects- I've seen people with far more to their resume get deleted because of a lack of reliable sources. A fanbase also doesn't guarantee that you'll pass WP:ARTIST either. I know of more than a few podcast authors with huge fanbases that don't pass notability guidelines. What counts here is that you can prove Keeley's notability with reliable sources, which unfortunately I'm unable to find. I do see where he's been in a movie that won an award, but that movie's notability is not transferred to Keeley (see WP:NOTINHERITED). He just doesn't pass WP:ARTIST at this time. It's too soon to add him to Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
• Do Not Delete. By six roles you are obviously going by his imdb page, which is in fact incomplete. To date he is much closer to 10 projects performing in 3 more television series and a short film. I understand why you might be rallying for his deletion, but what you haven't taken into account is the quantity of projects he has performed in coupled with the amount of time he has been a working actor. It hasn't even been two years since his first film and already he has performed in a large quantity of projects. He is an actor that is, without a doubt, on the rise, and quite frankly, what is the point in deleting a page that will need to be rewritten a short time in the future when a page for him becomes even more necessary than it is now. Also, about your comments concerning fanbase...I mean no offense by this, but podcast authors are not actors. They don't have nearly the same type of popularity as actors do. Is wikipedia not an online encyclopaedia for the people? Why, when an actor has a fanbase, would you not supply that fanbase with the necessary information concerning said actor. Its baffling to me that this article is even being considered for deletion. It is not meaningless drivel, it is not purposeless, it is an information resource concerning a rising stars career to date, something which can, and WILL be useful to many fans, movie buffs and other people for a very long time. When Sam Keeley stops working, stops acting... then, and only then will I accept that this article isn't worthy of a place on this site, but for right now, deletion would not only be rash and unthinking, but completely inconsiderate to all fans out there that want this article to exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. I beg to differ on the fanbase for podcast authors. There are some out there that had such a large fanbase that they actually ended up becoming published authors, such as Scott Sigler. He does all of his main publishing through podcasting and his paper books all started as podcasts that did so well that a publisher picked them up. There are other podcast authors such as Phil Rossi that don't pass notability guidelines for this site, yet have enough of a fanbase that they're able to live off of the donations they get from said fanbase. It's a different type of area, but the premise is the same. Being an actor doesn't automatically give you notability and having 10 roles or 100 roles does not automatically bestow notability either, nor does time served. Also, we can't predict what will happen in Keeley's future. He might go on to become the next Orlando Bloom or he might fade away from the public eye. We can't predict the future and we can't keep an article because he might eventually pass notability guidelines one day. That goes against WP:CRYSTAL. What we need here are reliable sources that pass WP:RS. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument for keeping a page because something can be useful but still not pass notability guidelines. We could talk until the sun goes down and comes back up, but at the end of it all we'll still need those reliable sources to prove notability. Regardless of whether or not he'll one day be more famous or how useful this is, notability is shown through reliable sources. It'd be nice if we could keep every article, but there are guidelines to follow as far as notability goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Although if you want, you could ask if you could WP:USERFY the article if it gets deleted. That will allow you to not only work on the article but also add reliable sources to it until it passes notability guidelines. Again, it's the reliable sources that will probably end up keeping this article from being kept. You need sources that are independent of Keeley and aren't business industry listings, IMDb pages, or entries that merely show he acted in something. A reliable source would be a news interview with Keeley or a media interview from someone that's considered to be notable and reliable. (For example, even the Daily Mail in all its tabloid glory could be considered a reliable source as long as it focused on Keeley.) Articles that merely quote Keeley or only mention that he acted in something don't really count as reliable sources, just trivial ones. Anything released by him or his agents doesn't count as a reliable source proving notability since it came from a primary source. I hope this helps in explaining why the article is up for deletion and why the lack of reliable sources will be what might ultimately get it removed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep - he has form and is notable already.Red Hurley (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But we still need reliable sources to show that he's notable. He might have starred in things that have gotten media attention, but unless we have something that is focusing on him, he doesn't really pass notability guidelines. Notability is not transferred from or inherited by working on a notable film or with another notable person. We need reliable sources and they just aren't here in this article and I can't find any. If anyone can find enough reliable sources then I'd be willing to change my vote, but I just can't find any and that's really my only big thing about this AfD- the lack of reliable sources. Just be aware that as long as the article lacks reliable sources per WP:RS, this article will always be tagged for notability and it'll probably end up going to AfD again. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Notability is not inherited from films in which he plays small roles. An assertion of a fan base does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. Lagrange613 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lagrange613 has it right. Subject's one starring role was in a small, independent film. Otherwise, appeared on a single episode of a TV series and a couple of tiny film roles. The lack of evidence for notability is thus unsurprising. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:15, 31 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 Nancy Collisson. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Buffy[edit]

Mr. Buffy (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 fictional character is not notable and there are no sources in place to verify any notability Churchgoer251 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The page was created by User:Nancycollisson@yahoo.com and the creator of this fictional character is Nancy Collisson so this also seems to be an issue of conflict of interest. Churchgoer251 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I just noticed that it was previously sent here. Sorry I should have checked for that. But still, I don't see it as being notable. Churchgoer251 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nancy Collisson. While her page does have links that claim that the character was used as an ambassador, none of those links currently remain and I'm unable to find anything other than her wiki page that backs up these assertions. The only things I've found were sites that copied from the Wikipedia article and a book that's a direct copy of the articles. I just can't see where there's enough notability here to warrant keeping it as an article to itself. All of this information would be best served on the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Redirect to author's page. Most independent mentions of the character are really coverage of the author. I've found no independent evidence of notability. Lagrange613 16:17, 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 Taguig#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo P. Cruz Sr. Elementary School[edit]

Ricardo P. Cruz Sr. Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This elementary school appears to be non-notable, and has been tagged as such since May. Zero refs in the article. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to city or school district per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Taguig City#Education according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is not the case that all elementary schools are notable per wp standards. Quite the opposite--the normal course is to redirect, as editors have indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; does not meet Notability per WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 25 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 Manchester Township School District. This one comes closer to notability than most - at a glance. However, it appears to all be routine coverage - yes, even the threats (sadly). This one might become notable in the future, at which point it can be recreated, but it isn't there yet. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Township Middle School[edit]

Manchester Township Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This middle school appears to be non-notable, and its article has been tagged as such for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to to city or school district, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Manchester Township School District according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper, also junior highs are huge in the United States often having more students than high schools.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite the Wikipedia policy that states all schools are notable? Thanks.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long held belief many wikipedians have on the inclusionist side. There is no policy on schools other than high schools and higher education institutions are inherently notable. ASAN is from an essay here that many consider of note. They are all notable because every school that I have been to has NRVE style references.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the policy, guideline, or provide a diff that clearly states 'all schools are notable' otherwise this vote appears to be based only on your personal point of view. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He cited WP:GNG. They get news coverage, so they are all notable. Dream Focus 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Manchester Township School District. Tinton5 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment several sources here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. Lagrange613 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to district. The (unsourced) statement that they'll be performing The Wiz is the closest this gets to notabiliy. Lagrange613 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, and you get coverage of the school's activities, notable teachers being honored, bomb threats emptying the school, theater performances, charity activity, and whatnot. News results from Asbury Park Press, The Press of Atlantic City, and Tri-Town News Dream Focus 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Does not appear to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a directory of every thing that exists or which previously existed which fails to satisfy the notability guidelines. Edison (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing vote from above to Procedural Keep, I just realized that "we don't need an article on every school" has absolutely no basis in policy whatsoever. However if you were to read the GNG it says that multiple no trivial coverage of a topic constitutes notability. And this school has been the subject of dozens of in depth pieces in the Asbury Park Press and should therefore be a speedy keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:21, 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. Tone 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of collections from Easton Press[edit]

List of collections from Easton Press (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 press is notable (though the article is sub-par), but this list of collections (really, a list of lists of collections) falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Easton Press is a notable press of collectible books. Although it could be more thorough, this list is very useful for determining the titles included in the various Easton Press collections as there is no catalog published by Easton Press with such a listing. It also helps in determining what books have been discontinued in a collection for aftermarket purchases. Zuktuul (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)— Zuktuul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Not my favorite WP page ever, but seems to meet the criteria for a list: logical and finite boundaries, utility to Wikipedia users... Useful subpage for Easton Press. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essentially being spam - Wikipedia is not a catalog for Easton Press. LadyofShalott 06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified WP:WikiProject Bibliographies of this discussion. LadyofShalott 06:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – although against my character, this list does not meet the notability standard for standalone lists—WP:NOTESAL. I spent over an hour trying to find at least one reliable source, independent of Easton Press that discussed their collections as a group. As far as I can tell, there is none. Many of the individual collections are discussed in sources, but even those sources are essentially promotional material in various other publications. But nothing, especially nothing independent of Easton, discusses their collections as a group. This list hasn’t passed the most basic hurdle for list notability. Although I would fully support and embrace the concept of Usefulness as a valid reason to keep a WP article, unfortunately it isn’t one today. I also disagree with this list being called spam, it’s not. It’s just a list that hasn’t met the basic list notability hurdle—WP:NOTESAL. If sources can be found that discuss Easton Collections as a group, I will change my position. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:29, 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, Courcelles 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage discussing the list contents "as a group" means it fails WP:NOTESAL and WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing here to show that this list of books is notable. While some of the books themselves are notable, that doesn't mean that Easton Press is notable for printing copies of them. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Also, I want to note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not really a valid arguing point. We're not a directory for people wishing to buy from Easton Press. This list has no encyclopedic merit, which is what a list would require in order to pass WP:LISTN.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete. There is no independent coverage of "collections from Easton Press", so it fails WP:NOTESAL. Usefulness is not a notability criterion. Notability is not inherited from Easton Press. Lagrange613 17:08, 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. Tone 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fuddlesticks[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)).

Mr Fuddlesticks (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 largely a WP:ONEEVENT situation. It's not about a specific individual but it covers several living people in a negative light and doesn't really have any lasting notability. Received trivial local news coverage. v/r - TP 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Smells stronly like an attempt to prolong the embarrassment for the subjects of a one-day news story. "The blogosphere was abuzz..." -- oh, brother! EEng (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have a feeling I'll be voting "delete", but I'm going to at least try to clean this article up first to see if there's anything here worth keeping.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete. I hemmed and hawed over this because while there has been several news stories about this, I think that this qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT. There might be some issues of freedom of speech, but this just hasn't really gone all that far or gotten that much attention, all things considering. I've cleaned the article up dramatically, but this just doesn't seem to have any lasting notability at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• — Dugn8r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep.I think this should play out. This is an issue of free speech and this case will have far-reaching implications for years to come. --Dugn8r (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, who other than you thinks so? EEng (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is sort of a tricky area because it has the potential to become something more notable, but it just isn't there yet. Free speech doesn't always guarantee big press. Phillip Greaves and his pedophile guide is a great example of this. While repugnant, his guide technically fell under "free speech" and many people were predicting that his trial would turn into a huge media event where freedom of speech was going to be under debate. But that never happened and the entire case was quietly settled and Greaves was never heard of again. The same premise is going on here. You have something that has gotten a bit of news promotion and free speech is being banded about, but you can't really predict how it will end. Maybe it'll become more widely known, maybe it won't. We can't predict it, so we have to judge on whether it is notable now, not whether or not it'll be notable later on down the line. (WP:CRYSTAL)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Delete. If it becomes more notable, the article can always be recreated (and is more likely to be in any case).
• Please KEEP the City of Renton is abusing their power not just in this case but in MANY cases. They might be next on the Department of Justices investigation hit list. Their abuse of power must be stopped. They think they are above the law and removing this only furthers that idea. Please leave it there to see how it plays out and as reminder that EVERYONE should be held accountable for their actions! -- (comment left on this AfD's Talk by user Nagem319 [1])— Nagem319 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for either side of the issue and we cannot keep a page because something may or may not happen. Please see WP:SOAPBOX. I dislike people abusing their authority as much as the next person (it's a sore point of mine), but we cannot keep something unless it is shown to pass notability guidelines. We're not an advocate for either side and we can't keep a page just to make a point against anyone. That's not what Wikipedia is for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Delete as not a notable event. Its geographical scope is limited to Renton, Washington, a town of 90,000. Coverage doesn't seem to have lasted much beyond the initial news cycle. It may be too soon to judge its eventual impact, but for now it's had little. Happy to revisit without prejudice at deletion review if more comes of this. Lagrange613 17:22, 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. Passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spamarama[edit]

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

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

• Delete per Notability (events). This page is not encyclopedic.Stubbleboy 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was able to find and add a number of reliable, third-party citations in the form of news articles from various locations in the United States, published from 1991 to 2007. One unfortunate fact of life on the Web v. 2 is that many news sites are now pay-per-view and so many other potential references are unavailable for free. I was able to find a good cross section among the free ones, however. The widespread nature of the publications, both in terms of time and geography, are sufficient to establish the notability of this event. Not that the article doesn't need work – it does – but the article is notable for our purposes. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:36, 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, Courcelles 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Speedy Keep – Easily-found reliable sources that address the topic in detail equate to topic notability for Spamarama (passes WP:GNG). Here's a few I added to the article:

• Hattersley, Cleve (October 26, 1995). "LIGHTS! CAMERA! SPAMARAMA!". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved December 21, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Down with Spamarama". Austin American-Statesman. April 5, 1997. Retrieved December 21, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Spamming it up". The Dallas Morning News. April 2, 2000. Retrieved December 21, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article clearly needs work, but the list of references demonstrates it satisfies the general notability guideline. Lagrange613 17:26, 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. The consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Michig (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lava Bear Films[edit]

Lava Bear 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 foresee some controversy in this article, so I'm bringing it here. This article was created last month, and cites some notability unto itself, however, I'm not seeing it in the sources provided. Granted, this seems a little weak, I suppose. Still, it's a relatively new production company, with a film that is currently not yet in production as far as I can tell. Furthermore, from what I see, the article is attempting to hinge on the notability of the corporate CEO for this production; the issue here is that notability of the company is not inherited from its CEO. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the two Variety articles and the Hollywood Reporter article demonstrate notability to me. They are not primarily about Linde the CEO, they are about the setting up of the company and the announcement of its first film project. There is some element of promotional text about the current version of the article and it is clearly being edited by Linde himself, so there are WP:COI issues. But these aren't enough to warrant deletion, IMHO. The company is sufficiently notable. I spent some time a month or so ago, ensuring the related David Linde article was properly sourced. At the time I took a look at Lava Bear Films and decided it was notable and I don't see anything to change my mind. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Sparthouse, basically. It has definitely received coverage, while it is somewhat thin at the moment--there is certainly ample sourcing to justify a stub here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 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, Courcelles 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrates it satisfies WP:ORG. I linked some more coverage in the article. The article definitely needs work but deletion is unwarranted. Lagrange613 17:49, 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. Tone 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people from Boston[edit]

List of fictional people from Boston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Specifically the policy says

    1. Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely 
    associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, 
    or persons (real or fictional)... 

Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 19:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Directory. What is significant about them being from Boston? SL93 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Boston in fiction. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Boston in fiction: lists various works of fiction that take place in Boston, Massachusetts: Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:06, 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, Courcelles 21:40, 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. Passes the Notability guidelines (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Steamboat[edit]

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

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

Page has had notability warning tag since Jan 2008. Brollachan (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In-depth mentions in The Nation,[2] and The Star,[3], as well as reviews in several guidebooks, including Frommer's, which appears on the New York Times website.[4] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:46, 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, Courcelles 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep – No specific reason has been stated in the nomination for the article to be removed from Wikipedia, and above, sources have been found. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources have been found. And thousands of articles have those irritating "notability warning tag"s on them, everyone just ignores them. Dream Focus 00:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A restaurant chain operating in eleven Southeast Asia countries is notable. Sources have been found, but there should be inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:53, 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 keep. Comments in favor of deletion cited WP:NOTNEWS and recentism as reasoning, but did little to explain why this event is not notable regardless of its age. The number of deaths in a fire can be indicative of notability but cannot rule out notability. IP 184.44.129.253 comment was ignored. Comments in favor of keeping showed that the event has received continued media coverage. Jujutacular ^talk 17:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penhallow Hotel fire[edit]

Penhallow Hotel fire (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 a notable fire. Three deaths is not enough to count as a notable fire of encyclopedic proportions, and that it is "reported as the worst hotel fire in the UK in nearly 40 years" comes from a non-reliable source. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no good claim to notability that I can see, Sadads (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to see you again, Sadads. You know, I need a babysitter. You free anytime soon? Drmies (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No not particularly, grad school applications and honors thesis are hitting me pretty hard. Life is its usual mumbo-jumbo of crazy, Sadads (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It may have been the worst hotel fire in the UK for years but it doesn't pass muster compared with bigger disasters. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fire is tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG apply here. Not notable- William 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This topic has received significant, ongoing coverage in reliable sources, here are some BBC News articles: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. This topic passes WP:GNG with ease. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say. Some news reports are provided--now prove that it is of lasting, encyclopedic, notability. Drmies (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG, per Northamerica1000s showing of reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So every fire that kills three people if it gets media coverage is of encyclopedic notability? This is a case of recentism, and not historical at all.- William 15:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have to concur with this assessment, Sadads (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fire, the aftermath, the coverage of it four years after the fire shows continual interest. [10] Any disaster that kills people, should be notable anyway. But this gets lasting coverage. Dream Focus 17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see the dilemma, but there's no hard line to be made based on the number of deaths. News coverage is significant and surprisingly ongoing, so WP:GNG is met. There are also indications that legislative changes re hotel safety are being considered as a result of this event, which suggests longer term notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have to agree with Milowent, the legislative changes alone make this worth keeping. There have been developments in court and news articles as recent as this week which means it's an event which is still very much in the public eye. The article does need work but I don't feel that is cause for deletion when all that is needed is some attention from an experienced editor. JoeSnarl (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. Recentism, recentism, recentism. How many wikipedia editors lack a historical perspective. Look at one of the people who voted to keep above. 'Any disaster that kills people, should be notable anyway." Is Wikipedia a encyclopedia or news archive? A fire that kills three people isn't encyclopedic.- William 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors lack historical perspective. Unfortunately, in fact, many are biased against recent events because they assume them not to be notable when similar events from long ago are indeed remembered. I.e., folks like Sam Patch who did nothing more than jump off a few things are remembered and celebrated close to 200 years after their death for what is basically something very silly. Or Reuel Colt Gridley. Or Francine Gottfried. Or Sawing off of Manhattan Island. If these people were around today, their articles would decried as BLP1Es and WP:RECENT problems. The mere fact that three people died, by itself, may not be sufficient. But the greater implications of an event can far exceed the death toll of it. Famously, for example, the Boston Massacre only involved the death of five civilians. Surely that was a non-notable event, right? Of course not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These events and people are remembered 200 years after their times. Although they are about relatively obscure topics that factor is a good indicator for their notability. I wonder if people will (other than descendants of those involved) will be talking about the Penhallow Hotel fire after a similar length of time. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 02:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, I hate it when you get involved in these things since you often make me rethink my position. Damn you! I don't yet, however, see such significant sourcing to change my mind--it's in the nature of such events to generate at least some coverage, but for me it's not quite enough. Did it effect anything outside of those involved? New regulations, new measures? If that happens it's notable, usually--"greater implications." All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism? It happened in 2007 and years later it gets coverage. And what you consider encyclopedic differs from what others consider it. Nothing gained by deleting this. Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space. Dream Focus 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG with it's coverage in reliable, third party sources. The whole "it's getting coverage 4 years later" stuff makes me disagree with any claims of recentism. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Legislation often gets changed as a result of media attention because politicians are wary of the "public opinion" (ie: what the press writes about). So this can go on in circles. And of course there will be articles like "5 years ago, a hotel fire killed 3 people...." because that's easy filling for a paper or site. But that doesn't show lasting notabily. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Quote from reliable source The Cornishman: "The first member of the emergency services at the scene of the worst hotel fire in the UK for 40 years has described the early stages of the blaze as "complete chaos".", which describes the fire as the worst in the UK for 40 years. This further conveys topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete _ Poorly written.184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That is not an appropriate reason for deletion, and the above user has been warned about this type of behavior before. MSJapan (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The delete !vote above about prose style of the article isn't valid grounds for deletion of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Going by this ip's edit history and talk page I would have a hard time assuming good faith for this vote anyway.Fraggle81 (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The above IP is currently range blocked due to extensive disruptive editing, (See here and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 - This is an example of one of many ways he's been disruptive; he keeps on following around Salvidrim and I and making invalid, bad faith !votes at AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 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. Tone 22:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cusars[edit]

The Cusars (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 indicia of notability of this rock band. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for over a year. Created by a 1-article-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing on Google News. Neither Amazon nor iTunes sells their music. Kauffner (talk) 11:54, 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, Courcelles 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 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. Passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obstacle racing[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:N. The references listed appear to be primary in nature, and justs lists just bare websites. Phearson (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phearson proposed speedy deletion on 13 Dec 2011 but this was contested by DGG on 13 Dec 2011. Phearson proposed deletion again on 13 Dec 2011 but this was contested by me on 13 Dec 2011. Phearson proposed deletion again on 14 Dec 2011. I have no particular interest in this article but I think we need more people involved in the discussion before a decision on deletion is made. Biscuittin (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sport of obstacle racing has attracted more than one million athletes this year alone. Spartan Race, Tough Mudder, and Warrior Dash together have 2.7 million Facebook subscribers. I find this to be sufficient evidence for including obstacle racing in an encyclopedia, and thus Wikipedia. Ablenis94 —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong keep. This is a popular sport in reality TV, military training and general athletic competition, while it also has many world record holders. The article scope is enough for sufficient citations, though we need to clean up the bare URLs for references. It is a sport just like any other, and is nearly as significant as the triathalon, for example. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:27, 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, Courcelles 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Never heard of it before, but USA Today, Running magazine and a local television news station have taken notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Here's more references I added to the article. Don't delete, improve. Also, topic notability is based upon available reliable sources, not whether or not they are present in articles. Nominator, please read WP:BEFORE:

• Weir, Tom (December 14, 2011). "'Obstacle racing' is latest challenge for endurance jocks". USA Today. Retrieved December 22, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
• "Obstacle Racing A New Fitness Trend". CBS Channel 6, Albany (Video). Retrieved December 22, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
• "'Obstacle racing' is taking off". Canadian Running. December 15, 2011. Retrieved December 22, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 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. Tone 22:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavia And The World[edit]

Scandinavia And The World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be non-notable webcomic. Editor creating it has created and edited this article but nothing else. No outside sources. No categorization. Author is only identified by online username. Quick search on Google indicates no third party sourcing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - No reliable sources to establish notability, and created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 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, Courcelles 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 14:28, 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. Michig (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nasida Ria[edit]

Nasida Ria (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:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Can't find any evidence of notability. m.o.p 04:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. m.o.p 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —m.o.p 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article published by Suara Merdeka says that Ria Nasida Kauman was founded in 1975 in Semarang. The group released 32 albums. They produced their debut album in 1978. Their albums are marketed nationally and also abroad. The group has received numerous awards, including the award of the Islamic Cultural Center (1989). (translated with the help of G-translate). It is possible to find out more in the G-news archives. The article needs an attention of a competent editor familiar with the Indonesian cultural background, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:50, 14 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, Courcelles 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Rather than removal from Wikipedia, this topic appears to be notable per having a significant notable history and extensive discography over a significant period of time, which confers notability, and the article appears to be worthy of improvement, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Adding rescue tag to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – - This article from The Jakarta Post suggests that a song first recorded by them was a "radio staple" for more than 20 years. This one from Suara Merdeka has a bit more background, and this one calls them a "legendary" Islamic music group and the "pride of Semarang". I may expand the article with the sources provided tomorrow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 25 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 No consensus. Feel free to renominate this page if it does not qualify Wikipedia standards. Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Non-admin closure. [reply]

Mark Peterson-Perez[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)).

Update - There is an issue with the name of the individual. According to the author the correct spelling is Mark Petersen-Perez, not Mark Peterson-Perez. Rather than complicate the AfD I have moved the article Mark Peterson-Perez to Mark Petersen-Perez. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Peterson-Perez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor activist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. The article references appear to be passing mentions of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment - I added several front page news stories direcly about the individual in response to the "minor activist" and "passing reference" objection. Ghits and Gnews hits are lacking because the main sources are not online. PPdd (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Each of two sufficient WP:BIO conditions are met - Petersen-Perez (1)"has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject", OR (2) is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Either one of these would be enough. In fact, both hold. (1)is established in the reference section list in the article. Quotes were provided in the references to show that the article subject is the same as the source subject. The second sufficient condition is met since the first four sources are recorded front page news stories directly about Petersen-Perez. WP:BIO is satisfied. PPdd (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see no evidence of any significant front page or any "significant coverage" of the individual in reliable sources. The sources you have added to the article are basically passing mentions of the individual. You are correct that the individual need not be national to be notable, but to be notable he must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or an associated WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The article still appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added four front page news sources directly about the subject in response to your comment. PPdd (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I also have concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX and the application of WP:NOTNEWS to a biographical article. Piecing together factoids (i.e. true but insignificant information) of individuals from local news articles is not enough to pass the various notability guidelines. Location (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment - I removed WP:Soapbox and WPNOTNEWS[11] put in by a new editor. I have substantially changed the article since its creation (under a different subject title), which did indeed have a WP:UNDUE number factoids. But the only "factoid" now in the article is that he is a financial analyst. PPdd (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me state that the term “factoid” was not meant to be derogatory to the subject or his work. The point is that more than newspapers mentions are necessary to establish a person’s notability. This is particularly true when the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports AND when the newspaper reports are confined to a small geographic region (a city in this case) AND when there is a distinct lack of other types of published sources. If this were allowed, it would be possible, for example, to create articles for every high school coach or athlete who gets a blurb in the local rag for his or her accomplishments at last night’s game. I guess an argument could be made that they should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be against it.

Secondly, I agree that a subject does not necessarily require “national significance” to be notable, but I think the broader point was that not all verifiable information is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia since it considers the enduring notability of persons and events and caters to a wider audience. This article states that the subject “is a LOCAL government watchdog, political activist, financial analyst, and publisher of the online Palo Alto Free Press”, "is a LOCAL political advocate for the homeless”, “well known LOCALLY for using the local platforms of communication and petition for redress”, and “well known to persons who attend Palo Alto City Council meetings.” [Emphasis mine.] Not all subjects need to have national significance to be considered notable, however, that does not mean that subjects with only local significance are notable. Location (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why are you calling the newspaper articles now included"mentions" of him, and saying "the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports"? (Your comment might have been written before I added the articles directly on him, so we can strike this part of the discussion if it was.)

2. "Local" is in no way a necessary consideration in WP:BIO. A historian researching local platforms of petitioning the local governments would want an encyclopedia that has information on notable persons in this area. Whether or not that person later achieves notability on a different level of government would be irrelevant to such a historian using the encyclopedia. PPdd (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Local news is not enough. If he was really of national significance, there would be other coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment - WP: BIO does not require "national significance". Recording in the news is sufficient per WP:BIO. PPdd (talk)

• Keep - WP:BIO's standards. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

"Worthy of notice" Clarence Earl Gideon was a person worthy of notice, why because he refused to become a part of the status quo. His actions caused a shift of the entire judicial system as we know it today. And he started out as a single voice.

"If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years of punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed." Robert Kennedy

Petersen-Perez did not sit down. He stood up before local politicians to redress his grievances and concerns head on, and in the process lost four jobs.

Petersen-Perez without any legal experience nor background filed a similar petition, but in his case, before the California Supreme Court in defense of his first amendment rights to criticize government officials. Case Case No: S174520 What is "worthy of notice" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in that, in filling his petition we no of know other private citizen or persons to have been found to challenge a municipal government attorney on First Amendment issues.ManicalCritic (talk) 17:07, 24 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment - As a leading anti-taser activist and publisher, as copious sources indicate in a quick swing through cyberspace. That he is an individual of local fame (or infamy, depending upon one's politics) is neither here nor there. This article got PRODded by the nominator less than 4 hours after creation and the edit history shows a complaint that the nominator also pulled off a CONSTRUCTION banner by the creator just 37 hours after last edit. I'm left wondering what is the rush here... I've been to Palo Alto a number of times; it's not a po-dunk berg in the middle of nowhere, but rather a significant city that is part of the San Francisco bay area, so complaints of "local only" coverage should not be give excessive weight. The article does have serious style issues, but I believe that this is essentially a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, could you specify any content problems you think still need addressing to change back to a keep vote? Did these edits address your concern? Thanks. PPdd (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't think it can be disputed that Peterson-Perez (or however his name might be spelt) is a notable figure in the politics of a significant city. With that said, the current state of the article is really awful and in my opinion the entire thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten with NPOV in mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep No real concerns over notability but serious concerns over POV. Article needs to be re-written from a more neutral point of view. Pol430 talk to me 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2011 in Germany.  Sandstein  17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany in 2011[edit]

Germany in 2011 (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 is a content fork from 2011 in Germany. We don't need two articls with the same content. Creator has declined suggestions to merge contributions back to original article. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started Germany in 2011, and it was not forked from 2011 in Germany, which has no references. Also, there has been no discussion yet to merge it with that list. I am not necessarily opposed to a merge, but that article series has a different format. Fotaun (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into 2011 in Germany, as per the standards for these articles. Otherwise, there will be un-needed duplication. Lugnuts (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into '2011 in Germany' as per standard. --Boson (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2011 in Germany, being sure to include all of the referenced information and references. This is a well-written article, but the precedent for articles titles of this type appears to be in a "2011 in _____" format. Hence the merge !vote. Deletion of this article would not benefit the Wikipedia project whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:25, 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 delete. Tone 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video games censored by Nintendo of America[edit]

Video games censored by Nintendo of America (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 is just purely an indiscriminate list of information and violates WP:WHIM. I also can't see if this article is even accurate, because there needs to be a lot more sources in order to verify this article. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 21:05, 21 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) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ridiculous amounts of unsourced information and WP:OR. (Many of the things listed are wrong as well. For instance, removing things due to copyrights isn't censorship...it's just staying in the clear legally. Many other items are better issues of localization than censorship.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or seriously trim many of these issues are not censorship. For, example replacing Mike Tyson with Mr. Dream was not censorship it was a legal requirement due to the end of the contract with Tyson. It would have been illegal to include him. Also before anyone brings up the rape case, the change to MR Dream happened before that so that had noting to do with the switch. The game came out in August 1990 and the arrest was in July 1991. I mention trim as a possibility since some games do have citations for censorship such as Maniac Mansion, but the list would need to be vastly improved first.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a game's been censored, it should be discussed on that game's article, not in a list that I've noticed has been gradually fattening over the past year or so. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - None of these claims have sources! Skullbird11 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apparent WP:OR and no sources at all to establish notability. Further, it seems to be a bit of a soapbox. Perhaps such an article could exist if there were sourcing and could remain neutral, but at this point, it seems unlikely this will become that article. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - excessive original research with very little evidence of lasting notability per wp:gng. Also fails wp:WHIM, as pointed out by the nominator. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although it could do with a rewrite it still serves as a useful reference for people interested in Nintendo video games, 219.90.165.250 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)— 219.90.165.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument that is supposed to be avoided, FYI... Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would see this more as a category, since individual articles where there was censor likely have sources supporting the fact. Salvidrim! 19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It makes go sense and we should have one for Sega mega drive.184.44.129.253 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Could you point out any Wikipedia policies that would solidify your argument, as others have done? Also, the request for another article is outside the scope of AfD; that should be done at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 22:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment reply - The above editor is a long-term disruptive editor known for improper behaviour and discussion antics, who has a habit of stalking others' contributions (namely mine) and post silly or disruptive comments. Just do like I do and ignore. Salvidrim! 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What?,forget it,any way all it needs is a rewrite..184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article looks mighty interesting to me. Perhaps some of them can be sourced? -Kai445 (talk) 20:21, 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 Cornwall, Vermont. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (converse) 12:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Elementary School[edit]

Cornwall Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This elementary school appears to be non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cornwall, Vermont (or school district) according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 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 speedy deleted by Orangemike as "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait stories[edit]

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

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

Originally speedily deleted as advertising for portraitstories.com, the text has been resubmitted without reference to the website in question. However, I cannot find enough sourcing to satisfy our guidance for inclusion and even if I had I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a brief definition without context. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the editor who tagged it for speedy the last time around, I still say speedy delete per A7, as this still is a thinly veiled advertisement for the company/product "Portrait Stories". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Tollbooth (band)[edit]

Phantom Tollbooth (band) (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 clear how this band might meet WP:BAND. External links to reviews are of unclear notability. Spin magazine is certainly notable but the link goes to a slideshow on "indie band style" and if this band is featured there, it's not evident because none of photos are labeled beyond the clothing designers. Closest thing to a claim of notability here is a member with a wiki biography but WP:BAND asks for 2 or more notable members. RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is pretty clear if you look at the external links. Multiple significant coverage. Two albums on Homestead Records. More coverage from Google News including New York Times and there's plenty of print coverage from back in the day.--Michig (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep One of their albums was reviewed by Spin [12] and Trouser Press [13]. They have an Allmusic entry [14], Piero Scaruffi has written about them [15], and Junkmedia has interviewed them [16]. They put out 5 records on a Major indie label, Homestead Records. The frontman Dave Rick has been in a string of notable bands. (WP:BAND #1 #5 #6) --Guerillero | My Talk 22:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I turned down an A7 nomination of this page. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 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 Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LifeInsuranceQuote.us.com[edit]

LifeInsuranceQuote.us.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't believe this page wasn't speedy deleted. Huge notability and reliable source problems. -download ׀ talk 20:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that User:January has tagged it for speedy deletion under A7. -download ׀ talk 20:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - No reliable coverage. Clearly non-notable.   — C M B J   20:42, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konfederat[edit]

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

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

Entire article is uncited, and tagged as such for over 3 years. Also tagged for notability for over 3 years. Reads like classic OR. Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 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, →Στc. 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Interesting that in this edit the original author blanked the page after it was first queried for notability, which was his/her final WP contribution. AllyD (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given the claimed achievements of some members such as Friedrich Konfederat (as Bach's manager) and Rudolf Konfederat (military) they might be expected to show in Google Books or the Central European language Wikipedias, but I'm seeing nothing. So no obvious verifications, hence article unsafe. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 29 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 Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adeem Hashmi[edit]

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

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

The article on this poet has been tagged for zero refs for nearly a year. I cannot find substantial RS coverage; others are welcome to try. Also tagged as an orphan for nearly a year. Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As with the previous AfD, there are claims which, if verified, would demonstrate notability (e.g. controversies, popularity of songs, commemorative naming of a road in Rawalpindi); Google Books does show a couple of English language snippets, but it really needs someone with a knowledge of Pakistan and its culture to verify or not. AllyD (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I see that the previous Afd's 2 keep !votes were based on "... but if they [claims that need referenced] can be supported the subject would be notable", but they were never supported per wp's policy of wp:verifiability, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per above.Drjames1 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: per reasons given above, I think the article needs some edits by an experienced editor and will be fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Adeem Hashmi is notable enough for inclusion via the numerous sources given, the article just needs Wikified. Also, I support the reasons to keep, posted above by the previous users. John Cengiz talk 05:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You base your keep position on "the numerous sources given". However, the article has zero refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The best part of a week has elapsed and despite my hopes nobody has come in with information on this poet. That seems to stand in stark contrast with the claims in the article. I've tried various searches and come up with nothing (other than references to Alamgir Hashmi, a different poet). So reluctantly, I don't see how this article can be sustained in present form - obviously while allowing for a future, well-referenced article in its place. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, longterm unsourced biography. If someone can come up with some refs I'll be first to support restoring the article, but in the meantime it really is irresponsible to leave the article visible in its current state. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete The sources are either present or they are not. As the article has remained largely unsourced for over a year, I think it unlikely they can be found. A more than generous amount of time has elapsed for the article to be improved and notability established. Pol430 talk to me 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. GRuban (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ferns[edit]

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

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

Kept per this discussion a year ago mainly because of the award won, initially assumed to be a BAFTA Award. It's actually a BAFTA Scotland New Talent Award, a separate awards ceremony from the main BAFTA awards and according to the entry criteria it is open only to students and first-time practitioners. On that basis I disagree with the previous conclusion that this meets WP:ANYBIO, the film credits do not meet WP:CREATIVE and the subject does not have coverage in multiple reliable sources, the only WP:RS coverage I can find is from the same local newspaper [17][18][19] (the interview in the article is from a blog). The previous content has been removed due to a copyvio but can be seen here. January (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has certainly been greatly diminshed since it survived the last AFD,[20] and I will report back after expanding and sourcing it myself per what's available in seaches. A couple quick notes... Sterling Observer is simply the Stirling area edition of Scottish & Universal Newspapers Limited (AKA Trinity Mirror, Britain's biggest newspaper group and publisher of 240 regional papers as well as the national Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People, and the Scottish Sunday Mail, the Scottish Daily Record, and Dumfries & Galloway Standard), and it is to be expected that they would cover topics in their area. In depth articles in the newspaper expected to cover that area is fine. Notable to Scotland is perfctly fine to en.Wikipedia, and we do not expect worldwide acclaim for a topic deterninable as notable to Scotland. And that BAFTA choses to recognize new talent does not lessen the accolade or its sourcable notability.[21] Lots of comepetion and very few making it through the gauntlet. The award is itself notable as it is an award ONLY for newcomers, not those long establisahed in the industry... established filmmakers have other means of recoginition. We have a demonstrably notable award bestowed by a notable organization and specifically set to recognize New Talent (I am reminded of Young Artist Awards). This meets the criteria of being a notable award per WP:ANYBIO... and ANYBIO does not state that awards specifically intended to award only New Talent are somehow disqualified from meeting its criteria. I'll be back once the article has been rebuilt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep re-written article. one sentence when nominated. 35x expansion and improvement. No more copyvio. BAFTA Scotland IS the Scottish branch of BAFTA, and as an award from a notable organization, specifically designed to be awarded to New Talent, is an accolade he will never get again... as he is now no longer new talent. That BAFTA Scotland awards Scottish filmmakers in a separate awards ceremony from the main BAFTA awards, underscores notability of the award to Scotland... and with his receiving a well-known and significant award or honor (To Scotland), WP:ANYBIO is met. ANYBIO does not demend nor require the award be world-wide... and notable to Scoltland is fine for en.Wikipedia. And in looking at WP:CREATIVE, his short films have received quite modest attention but his feature film debut Kirk has received enough recognition and commentary for him to meet CREATIVE. Again, there is no mandate that a film receiving significant critical attention be world-wide in that attention. And beyond coverage of this fellow in the Stirling Observer, M. J. Simpson's review of the film is quite in-depth in its analysis of the film and praise of the young filmmaker... so we do have more than just one source speaking about this fellow and his work. We'll doubtless hear even more about Ferns when he gets old enough to leave home. The article is now one that serves the project and its readers and will be continually improved over time and through regular editing as his career grows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per my comments in the previous AfD. Truth be told, I'm curious as to where in WP:CREATIVE there's a specific mention that BAFTA awards aren't really BAFTA awards if they're issued instead to students or first-time filmmakers. Should there be a consensus in a relevant Wikiproject that this is in fact the case, that'd be a telling point, and I may well rethink my stance should the nom link to any such discussion. Failing that, I don't see any fresh argument here. Ravenswing 02:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In its current form the article meets gng, and is not subject to the problems that apparently afflicted it previously.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt did great work. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nomination achieved subsequent expansion and additional sources. - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Grammy Award winners[edit]

List of Australian Grammy Award winners (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 seems to be a trivial intersection of award winners and their nationality. I don't think being Australian has anything to do with winning a Grammy. Individual awards winners are easy to find on other Grammy Award pages. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to category and delete - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 29 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. Passes the Notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Avonmore[edit]

River Avonmore (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 lacks enough sources to prove notability. Stedrick (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The nominator has less than 200 edits, the vast majority of which seem to involve nominating articles for deletion. His time would be better served adding easily found references/sources rather than trying to delete everything he's never heard of himself. Clicking on the template links above gives about 6,700 results from Google and 537 results from Google Books. Clearly a notable topic. And I would point out that a river only needs one source... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added one ref. It also features in various 19th century Cyclopaedias (e.g. this), partly due to the place of Thomas Moore's poem Meeting of the Waters. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Bastun : this river is worth keeping; per it's coverage on google, per the roughly 20 articles linking to it and per common sense. benzband (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Nonsense nomination. One of the more famous fishing rivers in Ireland Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A classic example of staring an AfD without being familiar with WP:AFD guidelines. From WP:AFD: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Oakshade (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it waters 1,000s of sheep and gives the name to Avonmore House, home of Paul McGuinness. Also flows past the homes of John Boorman and Paddy Moloney. Sure they'd be lost without it.Red Hurley (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 'tis only an Irish river musha and begorragh. Sarah777 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I hold that all rivers are inherently notable. As sources can be found easily for this river and there is no suggestion that it is a hoax article, this should be an easy call. --John (talk) 19:46, 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 Procedural keep - redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaligoanj[edit]

Kaligoanj (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 an implausible spell error of Kaliganj. Now redirects to Kaliganj but we do not need this redirect, rather delete Kaligoanj which is an implausible misspell.  » nafSadh did say 17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: as "Kaligoanj" is currently in the text of Kaliganj it appears to be a very plausible mis-spelling. PamD 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment well, it did include that spelling, but after reviewing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bangladesh#Which_name_for_this_upazila.3F I have corrected the spelling in the article to match the title of the article, as advised in that discussion. Redirects from both/all variant titles are needed. I do not understand the rationale for this AfD nomination. PamD 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be at RfD, not at AfD: Kaligoanj is a redirect. I don't know what the procedure is for moving discussion to the right place. PamD 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The redirect, as well as the page where it redirects to, are both redundant. The page for Kaliganj Upazila, Gazipur already exists. All of these new pages should redirect to the existing article. --Ragib (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks: I've WP:BOLDly turned Kaliganj into a redirect to the existing article, and the resulting double redirects will be fixed a bot. PamD 17:53, 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. Michig (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ati[edit]

Eric Ati (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:FOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and [[WP:NFOOTBALL)). GiantSnowman 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 15:19, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Compressed Creative Arts[edit]

Journal of Compressed Creative Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined PROD. Non notable web-only publication. Notability is not inherited from its contributing editors. WP:ADVERT, WP:ORG, WP:NWEB, and also WP:Conflict of interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As Kudpung said, non-notable web based publication. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just another non-notable e-zine. The only independent source (to Duotrope) is trivial. Does not meet any notability guideline I know about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:08, 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 Withdrawn. Good job, Jethrobot. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CDBurnerXP[edit]

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

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

I found a bunch of trivial mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar, but nothing that would make this pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - found (and referenced) an Editor's review in cnet. That should indicate other reliable sources are out there. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. This is a borderline case, but a cnet review is substantial coverage, and this is consumer software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is not multiple sources. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This piece of software has a few other sources like this one from an Italian software reviewing website, this one from a Vietnamese website, and this one from a Spanish website. All provide what I would call significant coverage, even beyond the CNet article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:59, 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. --Kubigula (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Lady[edit]

Lethal Lady (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 aircraft is insufficiently notable to merit an independent article. While it should be mentioned in the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon article, it fails WP:GNG to standalone - and, also, might well be surpassed in its claim to fame (most hours flown). The aircraft equivalent of WP:BLP1E? The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesnt appear to be that notable, might be worth a mention in the aircraft on display section of the F-16 article but not a stand-alone. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This aircraft does not strike me as having done something noteworthy, there's no sign of it ever having made an individual impact unlike most aircraft with dedicated articles. Kyteto (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the above comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination, this aircraft doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. Anotherclown (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; might be notable within the F-16 community, but in the wider world it's non-notable. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:07, 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. WP:TOOSOON. No prejustice against recreation when she becomes notable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Nightingale (Volleyball)[edit]

Zoe Nightingale (Volleyball) (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 college volleyball player who does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of articles about athletes. Nightingale has not (yet) achieved any of these, so is not notable. Sparthorse (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally non-notable. Emeraude (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's early days yet for this young woman, however, and so the usual caveats do apply. Notability isn't there yet - but may be down the line. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Until she makes a notable achievement, she does not need an article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 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 Withdrawn. Reference has been added and tagged and unsourced claims have been removed. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job al-Shamie[edit]

Job al-Shamie (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'm having trouble finding non-wp-mirror references in RSs to this place. Others are welcome to try; I certainly would not want to delete mention of it if it exists. But if there is no evidence that it exists (let alone that the claims in the article are accurate), it should be deleted IMHO. Presently, the article has zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not surprising, it's uninhabited. Have inserted co-ordinates and ext links to map and photo. Since places are notable this should in fact be enough. Most refs are of course in Arabic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your typical good work. Have you uncovered perhaps RS refs that would satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability? For any of the claims in the article, including that it exists? No refs appear as of yet either on this page or in the article itself, in any language. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks... I think we need an arabic speaker to help us out on this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This census data from 2004 (in Arabic) appears to be from a reliable source, namely, from their Central Bureau Of Statistics. Job-al Shamie is the ninth village from the bottom of that first link. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Good work by Jethrobot, as usual. I withdraw my nomination, based on the ref Jeth turned up. Someone may wish to add the ref to the article, and delete the non-supported material (some of which appears to be contradicted by the ref), but my withdrawal is not contingent on either of those.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 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 and redirect to Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five Ridge Elementary School[edit]