The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon[edit]

Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Comparisons of aircraft types are not really encyclopedic, comparisons are also original research, prod removed MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title may be changed. See for example "Competition between Airbus and Boeing". The purpose of the page is to facilitate the comparison, by providing elements, side by side. Because it's very complex matter, and reading the 3 helps to understand what are the big and more subtle différences .

And also to provide elements about the competition (which wins when countries decide) between these 3 aircrafts, which helps also to see what makes the differences.AirCraft (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Competition between Airbus and Boeing, aside from being a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, is an encyclopedic topic. To the best of my knowledge the "4.5 generation fighter sales battle" isn't a notable topic in and of itself, rather only being notable within the contest of the various countries' fighter competitions, where those are notable (and they likely aren't in all cases). Also...why only Rafale (so far, zero export orders), Typhoon, and Gripen (so far, the seeming 'winner' of the three)? Why not include the F-16C/D Block 42, F-16E/F, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the latest MiG-29 and Su-27/30/etc. variants? As it stands this is a Euro-centric view of a worldwide topic that, honestly, isn't encyclopedic and would be unlikely to become encyclopedic even if expanded to a worldwide arena. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But a comparison between ALL aircrafts would become very diffcult to do, and to read. One difference with AirbusVsBoeing : there's a market (WTO), while military aircrafts are usually designed for internal needs, than export. So a new aircraft is designed in function of existing aircraft in the country or group of countries (USA, Europe, Russia-India, Pakistan-China). Hence it would be relevant to do different pages for these different regions in the world. And of course some comparison with F-16 (for example) would be made in the 'european' page, when necessary, because F-16 is sort of a reference. AirCraft (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Completely 100% original research as it is not based on any references that actually compare the aircraft. As a secondary issue the article is very badly written, reads like a personal essay instead of an encyclopaedia article and is full or grammatical errors and empty sections. Even if retained it would have to be re-written from scratch. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it's just the beginning ! The real comparisons will come the next days ! It's simply necessary to give some basic informations before. AirCraft (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article appears to have been created in very good faith by a new editor. However, I'm afraid that it's not an encyclopedic topic. We could have articles on the various procurement tenders the three fighters have competed for (noting that US and sometimes Russian aircraft have also been proposed for all of these tenders), but a match-up article isn't encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic, unnotable, and no clear reason for this specific set of intersections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic ? This page would give an occasion to see the results of 3 different designs (1 or 2 engines, size and weight, more multirole vs air dominance, etc.), at the same moment (1985). And it's just an example. AirCraft (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page could be renamed "Fighter design (european example)". One of my purposes is to understand how much these 3 fighters are complementary, and why noone is a clear winner, for the moment at least ; and what are the results of a specific choice : 1 or 2 engines, small or big, more or less unstable, high ceiling or not, more multirole or not, etc. I know this is difficult to do, but I really see it as encyclopedic : informations and knowledge to explain the world.AirCraft (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly well-intentioned, but this topic is simply impossible to write about without violations of WP:OR. It would be an interesting subject for a magazine feature, but it isn't a topic that's appropriate as an encyclopedia article. I hope the author doesn't get so sad he doesn't want to be at Wikipedia any longer, because I can see that he has lots to contribute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While in good faith, the article consists of 100% original reasearch. Buggie111 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is a one-editor opinion piece that makes quite a few subjective conclusions in its body. While I hope not to be drawn into a point-counterpoint on those subjective issues, I wish to state that I do not see this article as meeting WP:NPOV, as well as WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyteto (talk • contribs)
• Delete subjective opinion, irrelevant...., you name it. Maybe OK as a magazine article with a LOT of work, but not required in Wikipedia!!Petebutt (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically this is full of OR and synthesis - not an encyclopedia article. While some of the competions which these aircraft are entered into may be notable (we already have an article on the Indian one) a pure comparison article like this one isn;t needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comment I just acted on a hunch, and decided to check if some of this content has been previously posted elsewhere. Many paragraphs have been entirely copy+pasted from other websites, which I believe infringes upon WP:Copyvio. The article's developer needs to learn the difference between sourcing information, and wholesale plagiarism - One is taking the content of a work exactly how it is and dumping it into your own text (not allowed) while the other is making reference to a piece of, or multiple peices of, information from that source, rewritten in original words; sections shouldn't just be ripped out of other websites and dumped onto Wikipedia - it isn't allowed, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute, especially when some of those sources aren't proper sources to begin with (Do not use forums for information - anyone can log into a forum and cry something, it doesn't make them right in the slightest); please only cite information from WP:Reliable Sources only. This article is a complete mess - It should be scrapped. Kyteto (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not encyclopedic, as per nom. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic and complete original research. --McSly (talk) 22:47, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pownd (American Metal Band)[edit]

Pownd (American Metal 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)

Borderline spam, not notable regardless. Only promotional links. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage found. Even MusicMight/Rockdetector doesn't have anything.--Michig (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do a google search for "pownd band" and numerous sites come up including music review sites. No more "spam" than pages on any other band. Tretslip —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A little bit of blog/fanzine notice, nothing substantial from an WP:RS source that I can see. 110 listeners ever on Last.fm suggests I'm not missing anything. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:08, 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 speedy delete. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitest People U'Know (album)[edit]

The Whitest People U'Know (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable album. Only finding commercial links. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This should also include: The Whitest Kids U' Know (album) Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye[edit]

Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye (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 boxing match fails the WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria with no "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect" demonstrated. The coverage that exists is purely of the routine nature any sports match gets, it is likely that any of this weekends matches in the NFL, La Liga, EPL will receive the same level of coverage watched by the same number of people. Mtking ^(edits) 20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was a heavyweight world title fight, in no way equivalent to run-of-the-mill league football matches as implied by the nominator, even though most people who were there probably remember the torrential rain more than the quality of the match. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"world title fight" is far more impressive than it sounds given there about 13 different organisations giving out "world titles", my point still stands that the article does not demonstrate how this fight is of any "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect". Mtking ^(edits) 01:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This fight was for three of the four major titles. The lasting effect is that the fight determined who held these championships until Wladimir Klitschko's next fight. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Relatively widely covered. Unification of some of the main belts available at heavyweight level (and heavyweight tends to be more notable than other divisions). I'd expect all heavyweight title bouts to merit some coverage - but only a weak keep as main details can (and do, I think) appear on the pages of the particular boxers concerned. Bikerprof (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Article dedicated to Ring Magazine/Lineal championship heavyweight title fight (as well as several sanctioning bodies). Also, fight gained significant media coverage in the US and in Europe. Basically, fight for most prestigious prize in boxing with significant media coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 14:57, 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 speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V-Nasty[edit]

V-Nasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Should be speedied, but history has shown it is easier to just AFD since they bothered to have an info box. Not notable, no info. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete-No need for an AfD; all you had to do was tag it for deletion, which I've done under the A1 section on the CSD-24.107.242.3 (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  History has shown me that many admin's do not like to delete under A1 or A7 if there is an infobox. I'm not sure why, but that rationale has been given to me on A1s in particular. I've had several kicked out for that exact reason. I agree with you, but just decided to bring it here, as I'm not in a hurry and hate seeing my CSDs kicked out on technical grounds. Won't break my heart if the admin at the switch just CSDs it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Messy Christmas[edit]

Merry Messy Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable annual event. Searching shows only unrelated topics of the same name. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be just a small get together. Nothing notable about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can tell, this is a private party for which no reliable sources exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:MADEUP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like something made up in school one day. The picture is a good indication to me that it's not a hoax, and it definitely isn't a blatant hoax. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain John's Harbour Boat Restaurant[edit]

Captain John's Harbour Boat Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. References in local media only. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and the "Local" clause in WP:N is where? Besides that, as reliable independant sources say " [When it] opened in 1970, Captain John's was the city's first floating restaurant."[4] it passes WP:N as we know notability is not fleeting. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the "Local" media issue only applies in specific cases related to references to academics in the media, it is not a general rule against all local media references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep – Per ongoing coverage in reliable sources & WP:NTEMP. References being local in nature is not a valid argument for deletion.

• Davey, Steven (July 10, 2003). "Abandon ship Waterside hideaway." Now Toronto Magazine.
• Brennan, Pat (April 4, 1986). "Down-under diner might sail once again". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Thompson, Allan (June 3, 1986). "City becalms 'Captain' John in bid to raise sunken restaurant". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Captain John's boat leaves watery grave". Toronto Star. June 15, 1986. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "New tax will hit MPs too". Toronto Star. August 21, 1989. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Shephard, Michelle. "Restaurant's Claws for Success, Sinking of His First Restaurant Failed to Dampen Captain John's Ambitions". Toronto Star. Aug. 14, 1995. p. C.3
• Ferguson, Rob (March 16, 2002). "Captain John's awash in heavy debts; Restaurant files for bankruptcy protection". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Smith, Joanna (February 29, 2008). "Hidden depths at Captain John's". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Javed, Noor (December 22, 2009). "Final voyage for Captain John's?". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Javed, Noor (Febraury 24, 2010). "Is Captain John's Restaurant too weird to sell?". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 23, 2011. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The issue is significant coverage. Being mentioned in the local paper is not significant. Being the first floating restaurant in one particular city is not notable. (First in the world, yes: first in Toronto, no.) Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:28, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Sherman[edit]

Praveen Sherman (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 non-trivial coverage of this person to indicate that he is notable. Tagged for notability three months ago. Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as purely self promotion and résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:38, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Fortune[edit]

Merry Fortune (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 can't find sufficient RS coverage to suggest that this poet is notable. Tagged for notability five months ago. Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunately I can't find much either. There is a review of her book by the publisher. The cited source in the article is only a brief mention of her as someone who knew a well known person. There's just not enough info in the article to establish notability - if she was editor of The World this publication seems non-notable too, or difficult to identify because of its non-specific name and description! I notice her Facebook page has 0 supporters, so it seems she hasn't been noticed by any of Zuckerberg's millions. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete she is someone who has written a few poems and a book or two. Nothing about her is particularly notable. We delete articles on people who have written more books that have gotten more coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Superstore[edit]

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

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

This page does not have notable press coverage and seems to be a promotion of the corporation, written by someone with a potential conflict of interest. User:Dennis Bratland pretty much sums up the rest of the argument on notability here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Motorcycle superstore is a run of the mill internet retailer. There is no significant coverage in independent sources as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which says "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article." Instead there are numerous citations of press releases and other non-independent sources, and many citations which meet non-qualifying criteria, such as:

  • sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
  • inclusion in lists of similar organizations. Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.
  • routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
  • brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
  • simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
  • routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
  • quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
  • passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

  Note that sports sponsorships are not inherently notable. There must be some third party reporting which asserts that the subject, Motorcycle Superstore, is itself notable as a result of the sponsorship. Obligatory mention of the company name because the company bought naming rights does not equal significant coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reply

-----

Hi there. I submitted this article. From this discussion, I question whether Dennis Bratland critically reviewed the key sources or attempted to verify them. Bratland's statement that all of the sources are press releases is false. Did you read references 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, or 14?

Internet Retailer, which ranks the top 500 retail websites is not an independent source? Motorcycle Superstore was ranked at #197 on that list. That is not notable? Internet Retailer's Top 500 list is not just a “list of other companies,” it is a ranking of the top retailers in the US and Canada based on online sales. Other familiar companies thank rank below Motorcycle Superstore on Internet Retailer’s list have Wikipedia entries and they are probably primarily notable because of their great success as prominent Internet retailers. I’m talking about names like CD Universe, American Musical Supply, Better World Books, Golfsmith, CustomInk, Geeks.com. I will also note that there may be a bias on Wikipedia in favor of brick-and-mortar retailers over Internet retailers, potentially citing in-store retailers that may have lower prominence in terms of sales and customer reach, but higher prominence in terms of physical visibility.

Also, among the references I included: Compete.com. Why is this prominent site not independent? BizRate? Better Business Bureau? Racer X? Radical Powersports? Moto Sports Newswire? Mobile Commerce Daily? The Fast and Dirty? How do you figure that any of these are not independent sources? Or that these are press releases? They are not press releases.

..personal attack removed by admin..

Some of the references I included do refer to Motorcycle Superstore pages, but those are strictly for historical and general info, as I was told this would be acceptable by Chzz on the Wikipedia forums. And a reference to the company’s Facebook page is the only place to verify the traffic of the Facebook page. If you think that fact is not relevant or notable, fine – that is another argument. But that is the best source for that information. And no, that isn’t a reference that proves notability or which objectively demonstrates cultural significance – but the articles from Internet retail experts and the articles from the press within the motorcycle industry cover that. It seems essential to check the independence of these sources before making incorrect claims that they are press releases, or that the company is not notable.

If rational editors feel the ratings or sponsorships are not worthy of inclusion in this article, you may have an argument - but let's hear that argument rather than this dismissive and false blanket statement about the whole article.

I read Wikipedia's terms carefully, at great length, before posting this article, and I engaged in numerous discussions on Wikipedia’s IRC to clarify the guidelines. I asked several Wikipedia editors for feedback, including Chzz, who ultimately posted the article. I recall that the terms warn against conflict of interest editing, but indicate that if a conflict does exist, to be forthright about it. I was. Yet, because of this, this article was slammed by Bratland. So, had I posted this article in disguise as a fully independent editor, as most (all?) companies surely do, it would not be seen as a conflict, right?

Wikipedia terms specify the importance of not submitting a biased article or one about a non-notable subject. I believe the article to be a factual article about a notable company. If you don't, then explain how references 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 14 are not notable or what makes you claim them to be press releases.

Mudlover (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mudlover, AFD is not the place to attack the credibility of other editors. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The citation for Facebook likes raises an interesting question. I would say the the best -- and for Wikipedia, the only -- place to cite the number of FB likes would be newspapers like the New York Times, or magazines like Newsweek, or in books published by reputable publishers. None of these major publications have ever written about how many 'likes' Motorcycle Superstore has? That right there is a clue that it's insignificant. If this were a notable company, you wouldn't have to scrape and scrounge for good sources.

  I won't get too deep in to the other arguments, except to say that those that don't just copy-paste press releases are "advertiser friendly" pseudo-journalists who make the effort to paraphrase press releases before giving companies a foot rub. Have any of these sources ever once said anything negative about a company? We all know there are hundreds of awful internet retailers, but you won't read about it at internetretailer.com. They're job is to promote and sell, and that's why they fail to support WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "...you wouldn't have to scrape and scrounge for good sources."  "scrape and scrounge" is a non-guideline characterization.  No evidence that this is true, either.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Scrape and scrounge" means the best sources you can find are trade publications of dubious journalistic credibility. Conversely, if your best two or three sources are say, the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, there's no argument, even if you also cite several weaker sources. Here we have nothing but the weak and dubious sources, without a strong foundation of notability. The guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria: the sources must be independent. My central point (which a reasonable person could disagree with, hence this discussion) is that Dealer News, internetretailer.com, and so forth, are not real journalists and they're not really independent. My evidence is, if you examine their content, that they only publish softball, feel-good stories that are lightly paraphrased copies of the subjects' own press releases. They only give foot rubs to companies in the industry they cover. They are never critical of their subjects. Since they only promote and praise, they are in effect, an extension of the companies' marketing departments. I assert that fails the independence guidelines.

Perhaps, if sufficient consensus exists, drawing a line between real independent journals and trade cheerleader publications could help clarify Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the coverage in Dealer News and Mobile Commerce Daily seem to represent indepdendent coverage that establishes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep – These articles appear to be reliable, third-party sources: Motorcycle Superstore's beginnings not unlike many powersports retailers, Motorcycle Superstore revs up mobile commerce initiatives, and are comprised of significant coverage that addresses the topic in detail. The article itself would benefit from some improvements, such as consolidation of some of the short sections into longer sections, ultimately reshaping the article to have a lesser number of sections, and more references from reliable sources. Adding rescue tag to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving aside distractions, I think the crux of the question is whether one considers publications like Dealer News or internetretailer.com to be acceptable for purposes of notability. I would happily cite Dealer News for a non-controversial fact like number of employees or year established, but industry cheerleader journals are indiscriminate, and non-critical. Because they will sing the praises of anybody in their industry, their coverage is not sufficient for notability. If you do accept these sources for notability purposes (I don't), then keep is reasonable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep it has been rescued with a ton of references meeting GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is my response to Dennis Bratland's statement:
  

"My central point (which a reasonable person could disagree with, hence this discussion) is that Dealer News, internetretailer.com, and so forth, are not real journalists and they're not really independent. My evidence is, if you examine their content, that they only publish softball, feel-good stories that are lightly paraphrased copies of the subjects' own press releases. They only give foot rubs to companies in the industry they cover. They are never critical of their subjects. Since they only promote and praise, they are in effect, an extension of the companies' marketing departments. I assert that fails the independence guidelines."

DealerNews.com was used only to cite this statement: "Motorcycle Superstore is a privately held organization based in Medford, Oregon. Club motorcycle racer, Don Becklin, started selling motorcycle gear from the attic of his grandfather’s house in Grants Pass, Oregon in 1998."

Firstly, I'd argue that this is not exactly a controversial fact. Secondly, I browsed DealerNews for a few minutes and found several articles that do not seem 'softball, feel-good stories that lightly paraphrase company press releases' such as: Opponents question Sturgis trademark group's charitable donation, Harley-Davidson notifying Wisconsin workers of planned layoffs, Judge says 'Daytona Beach Bike Week' is generic, invalidates trademarks, Dealer Lab: Destination Powersports hits speed bump, H-D Union Strikes, and H-D Q2 Net Income Plummets 91%. I found most of these immediately right off the site's current main page.
As for Internet Retailer, it is a source for Web-based retailer information and education. I used this source to cite two things:
1. That Facebook sweepstakes drove traffic to the Motorcycle Superstore Facebook page and website, and
2. That Motorcycle Superstore was ranked as #197 among Internet retailers in overall online sales for 2010.

The Facebook sweepstakes reference reported how an innovative marketing use of Facebook drove site traffic, and it demonstrates that the high Facebook "Likes" for the company were boosted by the sweepstakes. Whether or not the article is trade cheerleading is debatable. But I'd argue that Internet Retailer's Top 500 ranking of Web retailers' top online sales is solidly independent. Unless there is evidence that Internet Retailer favorably ranked Motorcycle Superstore higher than the company deserved, Bratland's claim of favorable, biased cheerleading on this important detail appears unfounded. Furthermore, I notice that American Musical Supply met Wikipedia's notability standard without obstruction based solely on its ranking at 344 in 2006 in Internet Retailer's Top 500 rankings. Motorcycle Superstore was at 197 in that list in 2010. Mudlover (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They made $71 million one year. Notable business. They get coverage for their activities and that of their hosted game, the AMA Pro Motorcycle-Superstore.com SuperSport. [5] Dream Focus 01:27, 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 Withdrawn/Snow. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Israel Synagogue (Asheville, North Carolina)[edit]

Beth Israel Synagogue (Asheville, North Carolina) (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 without multiple, independent sources. All of the sources provided are from the synagogue's website. Deletion tag was removed because "110 year old synagouge prima facie notablity", but per WP:OLDAGE, "Just because it's old, that doesn't mean it's notable." TM 19:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep. Historic congregation, over 110 years old, and considerable material from third-party reliable sources has now been added. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would these be? Every reference is to the synagogue's website except for One Jewish Asheville, which is affiliated with the subject, and the newsletter of another local synagogue, which isn't RS for notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beth Israel is only one of a dozen members of OneJewishAsheville, and the newsletter is certainly third-party. In any event, the single most used source is the Goldring / Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life's Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities, which is both third-party and reliable. There's also A Popular History of Western North Carolina by Rob Neufeld (The History Press, 2007). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Jewish institutions have a very good habit of getting a lot of press in Jewish media and otherwise and from what I see this meets the GN because it has multiple reliable sources that focus in this house of worship.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article uses multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the article currently exists, the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn but suggest a move Thank you Jayjg for the improvements to the article from sources I could not find. As it stands though, it is more about the Jewish population of Asheville than the Synagogue, so I would suggest we move the article to a more appropriate title and slightly refocus, but that is another discussion.--TM 02:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TM/Namiba. Thanks for withdrawing your deletion nomination. As far as I can see, only two sentences in the article are about the more general Jewish community, and the rest is about the specific congregation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep precisely because it is over a century old, in a country (the USA) that was only set up a little over two centuries ago. And now with all the excellent sources and references added to prove it. The nominator would have been well-advised to seek out some further input from experienced editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM because this type of nomination keeps on coming up and is shot down time after time. IZAK (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already within the nomination, but It's old is not ever a reason to keep it. A building around the corner from me was recently demolished because of safety concerns, even though it was 171 years old. Does every old building deserve an article? If you could, would you show all of us the guideline which states that? No, it seems some just like anything related to Judaism, so some create new guidelines to justify the existence of their articles.--TM 16:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't presume to speak for IZAK, but I've nominated quite a few synagogue articles for deletion myself, so it's obvious I don't simply "like anything related to Judaism". Also, there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. Finally, please note that this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GIABO[edit]

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

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

Non-notable neologism based on a single urbandictionary entry. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As well as being a non-notable neologism, I note, it's also a http://www.facebook.com/GIABO.US non-notable facebook "group" / tentacle of the anarchist group "anonymous"- Youreallycan (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. Urban dictionary=completely unreliable. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article is inherently a violation of NPOV by trying to force a linkage between various events that are not undisputably linked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Not finding reliable sources that cover this term. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV, non-N, not sourced by RS. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Wikipedia is not the place for newly invented words Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a WP:OR just like its source. An another source covering a little about it do exists, but the article really doesn't meets the inclusion guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Aprem Natniel[edit]

Mar Aprem Natniel (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 RS coverage of this person to support a finding of notability. Others are welcome to try. Perhaps a merge/redirect is in order. Tagged for notability since April of this year. Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It seems to be generally agreed (and I concur) that bishops of mainstream churches are inherently notable. The question is whether this is a mainstream church. Given it claims 400,000 members, I would be tempted to come down on the side of keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- His church is a significant one, and he is a bishop in it; thus notable. It is a pity it is merely a stub. However, I suspect that Mar is an honorific, in which case the article should be at Aprem Natniel. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against a merge to the church, with a redirect. But are we going to populate the Project with content-less stubs of people who do not have RS coverage -- but only bare mentions in their church's website, where the stubs say only "person is an x of y"?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Stubs are perfectly acceptable and bishops are notable. The fact it's a stub now doesn't mean it always will be. Bishops usually have significant enough careers for expansion into a decent article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to why not, one reason might be that his church itself does have bios with something to say about other bishops, but nothing to say about him at all other than that he is a bishop. When that is the case with the primary source, I wonder whether we are not serving as a directory. At such time as he had a significant enough career, as you put it, is reason to invoke NOTNOW where there is no RS support of non-RS support even in his church's bio for his notability beyond the mere fact that he is a bishop. If, however, bishop-level clerics are always presumed notable -- even with an absolute absence of RS coverage -- per consensus, then I would be fine with that, but we should then as is suggested below have that inserted into the appropriate notability guideline, with the appropriate explanation as to parameters (eg, all churches?, what titles in other religions?). I'm happy to follow whatever the consensus is, but establishing it and memorializing it would help make the process transparent and application uniform IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 25 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Query. Is there any evidence for this claim that community consensus says bishops are notable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bishops of Churches which claim bishops to hold apostolic succession and appoint bishops over a large number of Churches are notable. Just look at how many articles we have on Roman Catholic bishops. This might be a restatement of what Necrothesp said, but I hesitate to use the term "mainstream". That is an amorphouse term, and some Protestant groups use bishop for people who would not neccesarily be notable, so I think we need to be hesitant. Anyway, I am sure there is more information out there on Aprem Natniel, we may just have to wait for it to be translated from Assyrian, or maybe for the Church to grow enough in the US that American scholars give attention to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's certainly my opinion that bishops are notable. I think we are approaching a consensus on this, and it would be good if it was formalised. StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian futsal clubs in 2010–11 season[edit]

List of Iranian futsal clubs in 2010–11 season (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:Listcruft, especially since all league seasons have articles. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No point with this list, when you have the same info in the season article. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:Listcruft. Redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:43, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian futsal clubs in 2009–10 season[edit]

List of Iranian futsal clubs in 2009–10 season (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:Listcruft and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No point with this list, when you have the same info in the season article. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:Listcruft. Redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:44, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian football clubs in 2010–11 season[edit]

List of Iranian football clubs in 2010–11 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Indiscriminate listcruft. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No point with this list, when you have the same info in the season article. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:Listcruft. Redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Junho[edit]

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

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

Singer of limited notability outside his group, 2PM. Tried redirecting to band page but was constantly reverted, so bringing here for resolution. Google search on "Lee Junho" -"2PM" shows a lot of unreliable fansites and social media, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Google news search shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Google search on a celebrity is never wise. The popularity of 2PM is so widespread that you will only encounter various fansites and miscellaneous social media. (This could apply to other 2PM member Chansung who has not even been considered for deletion.) Try Google News for legitimate news on a celebrity instead of Google search. But using simply "Junho" would be better. His fans know him as "Junho" not "Lee Junho." I found a handful of sites searching "2PM Junho" on Google News. Another reason for lack of news may be that notable news can only be found in Korean. 2PM's success is mainly in Korea, and therefore a large amount of press cannot be expected on a member of foreign boy band. Nevertheless, he has become famous to K-Pop loving Americans as well as fans in other countries. His article in Wikipedia exists in five different languages (including the english one). Although user MikeWazowski is not convinced that he is notable, the sheer amount of fan pages that can be found should be proof enough that he is deserving of an article in Wikipedia. -SharonT (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)— Pinkmango00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Actually Naver is the primary search engine in Korea. Do a search using "2PM 준호" at Naver for reliable news. N8hobbs (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)— N8hobbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 November 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:01, 8 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:15, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he seems to pass minimum notablity issues. The references are not required to be in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per SharonT and John Peck Lambert above. Mikepellerin (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per SharonT and John Peck Lambert and Mikepellerin above.--Lpmfx (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'note to closing admin No opinion on this AFD myself, but there is a further keep vote on the talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 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 keep, with kudos to Vivekananda De for the improvements to the article. Kubigula (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata S. Krishnamoorthy[edit]

Kolkata S. Krishnamoorthy (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 RS coverage of this person that would indicate notability. Tagged for non-notability a year ago. Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article makes the unsourced claim that this individual translated Tirukkuṛaḷ and Silappatikaram, both of which seem to be very significant in Tamil culture. At least one source specifies that the individual is a recipient of Sahitya Akademi and Rabindra Puraskar awards, the latter of which is apparently the most prestigious of its kind. I don't see all that much out there when searching either romanized form of his name - so we may need to get a Bengali and/or Tamil translation of his name to be certain that we're not overlooking something.   — C M B J   11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article's name is itself very confusing because the person being talked about here is "Subramanian Krishnamoorthy" or "S Krishnamoorthy".The word "Kolkata" is just a name of the place (it seems that he lived in "Kolkata" for a large part of his life) and not a part of this person's name which is why google search results turn up empty.Yes, this person is a Sahitya Akademi prize winner,technically "Akademi Translation Prize"-->see this from the government website of sahitya akademi award-->go to http://sahitya-akademi.gov.in/sahitya-akademi/searchAwards.jsp then select "AKADEMI TRANSLATION PRIZE" in "Awardwise search" .The name given here is "S. Krishnamoorthy Kurudtppunal " which is not to be confused;"S. Krishnamoorthy" is the person's name and "Kurudtppunal" is the name of the original tamil book that he translated(his tanslation's name is "Raktabanya").Another reliable source is this but the name again is misspelt.Thus this person becomes notable according to WP:GNG.But this article's name must be changed to Subramanian Krishnamoorthy to avoid confusion.Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:05, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this man has done translations of inportant liturature into Bengali. Now that he is under the right name source material has been added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs some clean up and would benefit from further references, but notability seems to be satisfied. Pol430 talk to me 17:01, 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 keep. None of the post-relist arguments for retention have been rebutted. --MuZemike 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jets to Zurich[edit]

Jets to Zurich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable band. "charts" claimed by article are from a city radio station that publishes its chart info on blogspot Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The band have had articles, reviews and general coverage in many independent papers and magazines. And the chart whether official is still established and on a national station within the country it is based. Imperious2780 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is significant coverage, then add it, and the article will likely survive. Regarding the chart (which would grant inherent notability) - it is my opinion that the chart of one radio station does not qualify for the WP:BAND criteria in question. However, others may weigh in on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends very much on the chart, I would think. Which makes it that much more critical to find sources that show which chart, when it charted and how well it charted. If it's just a local chart, then not so much. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, from the (blogspot hosted) chart website - "The QBS Alternative Rock Top 40 is based on listeners votes" which would make it highly unreliable and unscientific. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon searching the internet, further links have been added to the article from reputable magazines. Digging for more info currently to flesh the article out.

Imperious2780 15:38, 10 December 2011

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Coverage is borderline-sufficient to establish notability ([6], [7], [8], [9]), and as these sources confirm, the band had a number one single in Qatar. Not a great chart, and not a massive achievement given the way the chart is compiled, but we have enough for a reasonably well-sourced short article.--Michig (talk) 17:56, 23 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article meets general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per User:Michig. I have reformatted the refs and added a few more. Pol430 talk to me 18:07, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mirbach[edit]

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

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

While he is mentioned in short passing references in a handful of refs, I cannot find sufficient non-trivial mentions of this film director, cinematographer and producer to meet our notability standards. Created by an SPA, whose only edit was to upload this article. Tagged for notability in April. Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Few sources in German language found that he has been working as a writer/producer/director/cinematographer, mostly contributing to documentary TV series/Infotainment and producing commercials. That is not enough to meet the criterias for WP:FILMMAKER. No article on the German wiki about him.--Ben Ben (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The author has been blocked for spamming and COI, see User talk:Rbmovie.--Ben Ben (talk) 22:43, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ben Ben.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 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 redirect to Geislinger coupling. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic coupling[edit]

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

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

Hopelessly confused article. This used to be a poorly-named and poorly-translated(?) article on the all-metal Geislinger coupling. It's now a vague duplication of elastomeric gear and Oldham couplings. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Coupling. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts are accurate enough to merge? The problem now is that the article is a partial duplicate of two different articles, and the two strands are intermingled so that there's no clear statement that could be extracted for a useful merge. Anything this article says that could be used within coupling is already within coupling. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Geislinger coupling. Sorry, I didn't review Geislinger coupling. Right, no need to merge because info is already there. In fact, the 2 articles are clearly the same, so IMHO, this should have been redirected without the AfD process. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:14, 23 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Geislinger coupling per P199. Buggie111 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be redirected, I'd suggest Coupling as the target. Geislinger couplings are weird and quite specialised, most elastic couplings are the simpler elastomers instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but the info of this article matches the content of Geislinger coupling much closer. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:31, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Estree[edit]

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

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

Non-notable performance artist, as best I can tell. Tagged for notability and as an orphan over a year ago. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Strangely I can't find any references to her online apart from her own website (which was last updated 3 years ago). The award that is mentioned seems to be very minor, from what I can ascertain. Her compositions and performances seem to be non-notable too. Sionk (talk) 23:17, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete run of the mill performer, nothing notable about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 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 merge to University of Pretoria. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPSpace[edit]

UPSpace (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:ORG. Created by someone affiliated with the library. Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selective merge to parent article University of Pretoria RadioFan (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note; I have blocked the creator of the article for the pretty obvious username issue. No comment on the article itself just yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per radio.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 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 Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs), presumably under CSD A3. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Underwood's Fourth Album[edit]

Carrie Underwood's Fourth Album (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 unsourced, and contains no useful information about the article it is supposed to be about. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if there is not yet any verifiable information about this album, then there is nothing we can use to write an article right now- although of course, an article should be created under the appropriate title once information becomes available. Prod removed without comment or change by anon. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if not speedy delete. Do you think this could be speedied under A3? There's no content here except a rephrasing of the article's title. I'm going to tag it accordingly and see if it will fall under that banner. The album will undoubtedly be made, but this is just crystal balling right here. The news reports I've found for it show that recording just finished but that there's no release date at all just yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year 2011[edit]

IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year 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)

Contested PROD. Violates copyright, listcruft, OR...need I go on? GiantSnowman 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Parent article is IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year, which has, in turn, parent article International Federation of Football History & Statistics. There is clearly no original research here, because the list was published elsewhere. There is no copyright issue because the list is simply a collation of data in the public domain and is uncopyrightable. The only question is whether it is listcruft. As this is article is simply additional detail for the notable parent, I see no case for deletion in this respect either. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - how on earth is a list of people who have scored goals, as collated by one organisation, notable in any way whatsoever? GiantSnowman 18:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the parent article has disappeared, it would be an anomoly if this remained, so I have struck my !vote. I still don't much agree with the nomination - it's clearly ridculous to claim something is both original research and a copyright violation, for starters - but that's pretty much moot now. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All of the above. Zero notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year. If the award by itself is not notable, then one particular iteration of it certainly isn't either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 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. Michig (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Dan-Air Luton incident[edit]

1974 Dan-Air Luton incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet the criteria for notability at WP:AIRCRASH, as well as general notability. The subject matter is also covered adequately at London Luton Airport#Accidents and incidents to whichthe article title could be re-directed Petebutt (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (no redirect)- if article does not meet notability, and is already covered in Luton airport article, then redirect is probably also unnecessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:PERSISTENCE, no need for a merge or redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As the article and the refs make clear this was a minor incident that resulted no deaths, no injuries and just some damage to gear doors (non-structural), a tailskid (which is designed to be ablative) and a couple of belly panel skins, plus a ground ILS antennae. All damage was quickly repaired and both the aircraft and the airport back in service quickly. The crew were not even aware that they hit anything, so minor was the impact. If this were about a surface accident it would be similar to an article on a car hitting a traffic light post and taking it out of commission, where both the car and the traffic light were back in service in short order. Even though there are some refs the incident fails WP:AIRCRASH and is not sufficiently notable for its own article. This incident bears mentioning in the airport article, where it is currently mentioned, the article therefore is redundant and should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the incident can be adequately covered by an entry on the airport, airline and aircraft type articles. Not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

for obvious reasons as I nominated the article for AfD.Petebutt (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator- William 00:04, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon McCroskey[edit]

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

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

MMA fighter with only one professional fight: fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:MMANOT, and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. One professional fight for a minor MMA organization and no significant independent coverage indicates a lack of notability to me. Jakejr (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow keep. Sources have been added, establishing the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers In Action[edit]

Numbers In Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable, per WP:GNG ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 19:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 100% Publishing, the album. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the album. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets the GNG. Coverage includes Song of the Day at NPR [10], single review at Pitchfork [11], at the NME [12], at FACT, [13], at This Is Fake DIY [14], at Drowned in Sound [15]. Director's Cut feature about the video at Pitchfork, [16], one of Drowned in Sound's Videos of the Year [17], winner of Best New Director and Best Urban Video at UK VMAs [18]. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per significant coverage found by 86.44.x.x. HurricaneFan25 — 15:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 86.44.31.213. Those look like fine sources. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I read the first two links, and yeah, that is notable coverage for this song. Dream Focus 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of coverage with which the article can be improved. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 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 delete by Alexf (talk · contribs), under WP:CSD#G12, as unambiguous copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman | Talk 17:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle market intermidiares[edit]

Middle market intermidiares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced article full of original research and here solely for promotional purposes. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable and seems like advertising sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 14:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment already deleted G12 it seems. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:59, 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 delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ede (Composer)[edit]

James Ede (Composer) (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:NOTABILITY. A composition student, shows no sign of meeting WP:NMUSIC. Editors have challenged CSD and deleted PROD claiming that who he studies under makes him notable, but of course notability is not inherited in that way. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not demonstrated in article. Absence of ghits. asnac (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination - no significant coverage. I believe there's some meat or sockpuppeting going on there as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Daniel: Please look at the references on the article with regard to meeting notability, in particular the Experimental Music Catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Letin (talk • contribs)
  • You are referring I think to this ref? But there is no mention of a "James Ede" at that page, nor as near I can tell any links that lead anywhere where he might be mentioned. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well here's the thing. Of course the person is not notable by our normal standards. He's nineteen. This is a good age to be in some ways, but not usually a correlate to notability in serious music unless you're Mozart. More importantly, no one has written anything about this person, according to Google. There is an article on a James Ede, a cricketeer. There is a James Ede with the delightful handle of "Darts Whore", a James Ede who is a political activist, a James Ede who deals in antiquities, a person named James Ede-Golightly, a James Ede who apparently enjoys ingesting unusual animals, a James Ede who works in films, and several other James Edes. But none of these are our James Ede. The only information I can find on our James Ede is his own website. This is not a good sign.

On the other hand, he seems somewhat more accomplished then perhaps some other teenagers, and, you know, by deleting these articles we are not being welcoming to new contributors, which we are supposed to be doing. So maybe we need to be more flexible about all this. But given the current state of our standards, I think it's safe to say that there needs to be something on this fellow beyond his own website. So delete. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7 Obviously not notable, and the article doesn't actually assert any importance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Thank you for your balanced, well thought through response Herostratus. Glad to hear your constructive response. After reading all this I reluctantly agree that the article doesn't meet the standards of wikipedia and should be deleted. I would personally be more flexible if this were my website, but at the end of the day, it's not, so I will conform to the standards of its owners. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Letin (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Speedy Delete A7 - there was a speedy deletion template on the page but someone removed it without explaining why. This person is, to my belief, un-notable and there is a lack of proof of his notability in the article. Maybe when he becomes more well known there can be an article about him. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) ^Merry_Xmas! 23:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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 keep. --MuZemike 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Ann McWilliams[edit]

Dee Ann McWilliams (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 person, been tagged with verification issues for two years, and was likely created by person that the article discusses (see Special:Contributions/Damcwilli). —Eustress ^talk 03:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She was a major general. Of course she's notable. No reason given by the nominator for her lack of notability in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is all about her post-military career, which is not notable. Plus, I don't think a major general (two-star general) is notable in and of itself. —Eustress ^talk 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did a little clean up and added some sources and all that took about 15 minutes. With more effort, I am sure there are more sources out there. Under WP:GNG she seems to meet the minimum criteria. Under WP:MILPEOPLE, she meets criteria #3 by holding a flag rank. I will admit that I do not like autobiographical vanity pieces, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient criteria to delete. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep- WP:SNOW per Necrothesp & EricSerge; exceeds WP:SOLDIER #3; one star is sufficient if V and RS are met. Dru of Id (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - meets WP:SOLDIER (aka WP:MILPEOPLE) criterion #3; stars on the shoulders = assumed notability. WP:V and WP:RS also met. Doesn't matter that "the article is all about a non-notable post-military career", notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Per Bushranger. Why was this relisted?--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisting Comment It was relisted per a request on my talk page because WP:MILPEOPLE is an essay and not a notability guideline.--v/r - TP 15:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage from independent, WP:RS sources. Sources provided in article are useful for informational purposes, but nor for notability: