< 22 December	24 December >

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 (G11) by User:Basalisk. Gong show 03:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freaquer Corporation[edit]

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

Article is about a web hosting company. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 23:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Only sources provided are primary and a search did not turn anything reliable. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Nominted for CSD as advertising. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:12, 24 December 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. The requirement is for reliable for sourcing not perfect sourcing. There has never been a principle that "weak sourcing" is a valid argument for deletion of an article, even a BLP. There is some confusion because it can be an argument for the deletion of controversial or negative material, and therefore of a BLP where that is the only significant content. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Stienstra[edit]

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

Dubious notability of minor writer of guidebooks; seems to fail under WP:BLP1E, leading to undue emphasis on his pot bust. Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The writer is a syndicated columnist for the SFGate with several outdoor writing awards. [[1]], Tahoe News [[2]], CBS [[3]]. He was the fourth living member inducted into the California Outdoors Hall of Fame[[4]], and from his site which I'm trying to verify " National Outdoor Writer of the Year, “President’s Award, Best of the Best,” newspaper division, twice by the Outdoors Writers Association of America[[5]]. He is the only outdoors writer in America to win first place in OWAA’s Excellence in Craft competition for 10 straight years, and to win first place awards for newspaper, television, radio and photography in the same year. His national awards include from Associated Press, United Press International and Associated Press Sports Editors. In 2009, he won first place for best outdoors column in America. [[6]]"

the awards need to be recorded in reliable sources, Stienstra's website cannot be used to "verify" that he has won anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's why I said I am trying to verify above that's why I had not included them in the article, but a simple search using the tools above clearly show he is featured in several newspapers and easily shows notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, what it actually shows is that he comes up in google hits and claims on his site to be an award winner. but that is not WP:N. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at the Sacramento Bee keeps citing him as a great last minute gift idea. 2004, 2000 - if that counts for notability. And it is that time of the year. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newspapers mention him and the awards he's won. Search for his name and the name of one of the awards to find coverage. [7] Dream Focus 00:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search for his name and just "award" and you get hordes of additional results, like the ones before, are hidden behind paywalls, so you have to just read the Google search result summaries. A Highbeam search didn't give me anything worth mentioning. He has won awards and his books get some good coverage here and there. Dream Focus 00:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO allows for " well-known and significant award or honor" not just "Student of the Week at McKinley Middle School". is National Outdoor Writer of the Year actually "well known and significant"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though not strong reliable sources, anyhow subject meets the requirements of notability. Here should be applied "ignore all the rules".Justice007 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Ignore all rules never applies to a WP:BLP - weak sourcing indeed as per the nominator but the article and the undue section has been improved/removed - not a support or oppose just a comment - regards - Youreallycan 21:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You and noted. Happy New Year 2013.Justice007 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No significant independent coverage. Most sources provided pertained to other organizations or were self-promotions. No prejudice toward writing a new article from reliable sources. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFC – Youth for Christ[edit]

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

Non-notable "youth branch" of a barely notable organization itself. Few ref's to try to even suggest any form of notability. Although possibly a noble goal, Wikipedia is not a place for noble organizations that lack notability (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG with no significant coverage in reliable sources - all mentions are extremely trivial, and several of the small number of news hits (which themselves are mostly WP:ROUTINE announcements of upcoming events) actually appear to be paid listings. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't established my vote yet but Google News archives found several results from the Philippines, confirming the existence there. I think two of the results, this and this are particularly helpful because they provide information about the group's history. One of the other results here suggests the group was introduced in Africa as well. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to go through these results later and see if I can establish my vote. I found this news article from 2003 that mentions Youth for Christ has 200,000 members so this may be significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I can confirm that Couples for Christ and its youth branch Youth for Christ are quite prominent in the Philippines, or at least have a relatively large membership (I know plenty of friends and relatives who are members of CFC). I'm surprised that there seems to be little coverage for either given CFC's popularity (hence the "weak" part of my !vote), but there's the news article which seems to confirm the large membership number. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing significant coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my experience, this is a significant organization. Couples for Christ is certainly very significant. It founded Gawad Kalinga among other things. I regularly see the "CFC - Youth for Christ" stickers. This site [8] says they have 200,000 members in over 100 countries, though most are in the Philippines. --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Couples for Christ. YFC's notability is derived from its association with CFC, and without it, it's not even notable for a section. It's activities (and influence) aren't as expansive as its mother organization, which is quite little to begin with. –H T D 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; after look at the reliable sources (web & news) out there the subject appears to be notable per WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Google searches linked above appear to be more relevant to Youth for Christ, a Protestant organization, whereas CFC – Youth for Christ is decidedly Catholic. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is well established --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There being only one cited source doesn't show notability. Besides, this Article is so sloppy that even if the subject did turn out to be notable, it would be better to write a new Article from scratch than to try editing this mess into anything good (like polishing manure at this point). Don't get me started on the grammatical errors and the fact that a red link to a non-existent image file is said to be the organization's logo. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Society of Medical Informatics[edit]

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

This article does not seem to be notable, and seems to be written promotionally. The promotional material could potentially be taken out, but this doesn't solve the fundamental notability problem. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did think of speedy deleting this, but I think it needs AfD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional; nothing usable seems to exist about this in English or in Romanian. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 22:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MJ94 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think About Me[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NSONG and does not include any references or categories. While it's recommended that songs which aren't notable should "redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song", its title is so vague that I do not believe this is appropriate. MJ94 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Withdrawing per SwisterTwister. MJ94 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Books found this which confirms Christine McVie wrote the song and Billboard not only also mentions this but notes the song charted twice. This also vaguely mentions a charting which aligns with Billboard's 20 in 1980. Although I have found errors with Allmusic in the past, they also mention the charting here. This December 1980 issue of Billboard mentions the song charted #17 on the Number One Pop Singles Awards. However, it seems it has since been forgotten among all of their other songs and was not included in their 1988 "Greatest Hits" album as this mentions. This 1979 issue of Billboard also briefly talks about the song. Google News did not provide much aside from this 2003 article which briefly reviews the song. I also found this (third result from the bottom, 'Tusk' rates a hat's off‎). I have improved the article using these sources, SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 24 December 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. postdlf (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jess McAvoy[edit]

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

Non-notable musician that has not charted. Fails notability requirements listed under WP:MUSIC. There are a lot of notable musicians from Australia, and this one does not make the list. Also, poor ref's for a WP:BLP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:MUSICBIO and only has one source. MJ94 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with much more evidence of noteworthiness. That discography? All self-released - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Borderline keep after Michig's fine work - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:BEFORE, a search for sources should have been undertaken before bringing this here. The ref in the article is significant coverage from a major newspaper, and there is further coverage from Curve magazine, Beat, Beat again, and Triple J. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Time to get adding! - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good enough? --Michig (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement of a concert? Heck no. That just drew down the entire article lower! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of significant coverage in several reliable sources, but maybe you missed them. --Michig (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the part where the "significant" coverage occurs. Like I said, one's a concert accouncement (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Enough for notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sufficient coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. In addition to what was already identified above, I added two articles about her from Australian newspapers The Cairns Post and Gold Coast Bulletin. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good work done to improve article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:29, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Sherrer[edit]

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

This is an article about perp/victim in an unremarkable shooting event that barely managed to get local coverage at the time of the event itself. It certainly falls afoul of WP:BIO1E, and there is no lasting or significant coverage. Indeed, it's disputable that even at the time, it never met the GNG at all. — Coren ^(talk) 19:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sad but WP:BLP1E, no lasting news coverage. Secret ^account 19:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is good information about this case but I believe it reads like a news article and it seems no laws or other actions were enacted as a result of this. Google News archives provided additional news articles from that time and Google Books provided nothing relevant. At the end of the day, this was a suspect who died in a struggle with a police officer. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to a section regarding the aftermath of the Cincinnati riots of 2001 since USA Today (national coverage) tied this shooting in with the chronology of the 2001 riots. Location (talk) 05:22, 25 December 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. WP:N is the main hurdle, and it hasn't been demonstrated that this topic meets it. Wily D 12:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Danish[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

It unfortunately doesn't look like this person meets the general notability guideline (no hits for "Dalia Danish" on Google News, News archives, or Books, save for one false positive; Google Scholar turns up one article by her which is already present in the article as well as another which looks like a false positive; WorldCat Identities turns up dry). CtP (t • c) 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danish, Dalia & Russell, James. The role of ‘action-effects’ and agency in toddlers’ imitation. Cognitive Development: Volume 22, Issue 1, January-March 2007, Pages 69-76

Danish, Dalia. Interview with Dalia Danish on ADD in Egypt. AlterEgo Magazine, Egypt. April 2010

Danish, Dalia. Personal and political: psychological health following the revolution by Chitra Kalyani. The Herald Tribune Daily News. Egypt. April 2011.

Danish, Dalia. Interview: Coping with the Revolution by Randa El Tahawy. Egypt Today June 2011

Danish, Dalia. Interview: Children of the Revolution by Passant Rabie. Egypt Today June 2011

Danish, Dalia. Reassuring You: Tammenny.com by Chitra Kalyani. The Herald Tribune Daily News. Egypt. October 2011

Danish, Dalia. The Psychology of a Nation: Egypt’s Trauma Continues by Dalia Rabie. The Herald Tribune Daily News. Egypt. January 2012

Danish, Dalia. Analysis: Candidates’ Body Language during the Presidential Debate. Egypt Independent. Egypt. May 2012

www.tammenny.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.96.170 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 196.202.96.170 (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we're looking for is not papers written by Danish, but independent coverage of her in reliable sources (Twitter, LinkedIn, and other such sites do not qualify). CtP (t • c) 20:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: some of the above are interviews, which may count for notability. CtP (t • c) 20:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see where she's quoted in Egypt Today ([9]), but nothing to show that she's particularly noteworthy or notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Her papers or articles might be usable as a reliable source in other Wikipedia articles, but being enough of an authority to be considered a reliable source is not enough to pass notability guidelines. Publishing articles in papers or any journal entry is not enough to show notability. As someone said in another AfD, scientists/doctors/PhD people are expected to publish papers and journals. It's the nature of the beast and the epitome of the phrase "publish or perish". However it's only when those sources are consistently quoted as being especially groundbreaking or THE source for whatever the specific scientist/doctor is known for, then journals or articles alone might be enough. However there is nothing out there to suggest that this is the case.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE!. Max Planck... Common Coding theory... Paris V Rene Descartes and interactive learning devices... all stuck in place like Egypt, using science as a battle where censorship is habit? if Danish goes unrecognized then this is just a sign ignorance will rule196.202.96.170 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- To 196.202.96.170: Please see WP:NOBLE. Wikipedia is not the place to give someone recognition, if he or she not notable yet, no matter how worthy the cause. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To all IPs and new users coming in: This is not decided on a vote and all arguments must fall within the rules of WP:GNG. We don't keep articles because they're related to someone notable (WP:NOTINHERITED), it has something that "totally should be highlighted" (WP:VALINFO), or anything that falls under WP:AADD. Even if a billion people come in to say it should be kept, if none of those arguments show notability for Danish per notability guidelines, then they won't really do anything. Also be aware that you should only vote once. I'm striking the second "keep". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are procedural issues with AfDing something 6 minutes after creation, but this is bad enough to be speedied as a pure promotional piece - if you delete the fluff, there is literally nothing left. My Google search turned up nothing. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you want and delete if you want - it is not promotional fluff. Dalia is the first to create an arabic self help site -- interactive- www.tammenny.com based on her knowledge of interactive learning aquired at max planck and applied i cambridge -- downing college-. she is the only neuroscience specialist in the region and the only arabic speaking downing college cambridge graduate who integrated neuroscience knowlege and created this free site. I have read the (WP:NOTINHERITED), WP:GNG, (WP:VALINFO) etc and objectively see that she fits the criteria. it's all up to you. I am more than happy to flag egyptian practicioners who are currently using wiki as promotional fluff and do NOT belong to any accredited uni or syndicate who even have fake online Phd's listed as their credential. This is really unfortunate. I wish you all a fantastic holiday196.202.96.170 (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request that other pages be nominated for deletion, but be aware that doing so just to make a point is considered disruptive. CtP (t • c) 17:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spamish - extremely low wiki notability - I am sure she is important to some but En Wikipedia's objective is to imform and publish reliably referenced content about WP:Notable things, places and people and not here to promote people - regards - Youreallycan 21:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three of the newspaper articles are found on High Beam. She is quoted as saying the Egyptian revolution may have stressed out some people and that they can get help from her free web site (and we must presume, from her if they are so inclined). They should not feel bad about being stressed out, just get some help. That sounds like spam, back door advertising. Not surprisingly, nothing about her or by her on Questia. Not much else on the first few pages of a google search, just similar newspaper articles. She may care about her people and be a good psychologist. She may be a good researcher. That is all we have about her. May be an admirable and intelligent person, but not shown to be any more notable than hundreds of other psychologists. Not enough for an article at this time. 09:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A2 - copy of id:Dokter spesialis. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dokter Spesialis[edit]

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

Apart from not being in English, this article is on a non-notable subject - advanced medical training in Indonesia. (Contested PROD) NtheP (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cross-wiki spam (en, id, jv, ms, etc.) Bennylin (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it was written in english, it is not currently notable. Therefore it is unsuitable.Tazerdadog (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Technically an A2 speedy would apply here, right? tutterMouse (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per A2 --Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:30, 23 December 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. postdlf (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkie (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This newly created dab page has at most two useful entries. The entry 'slang word for electrician' seems to me to be a bit of a WP:DICDEF, but if it does need to be kept it could be a hatnote to Sparkie. It's apparently Australian slang and I don't know how widespread it is. The third entry is for a record producer who doesn't have an article, making it a non-entry. I would remove it, but there's not much point unless anyone can find anything worth keeping this page for. (In the past I've made some over-hasty deletion nominations I think so sorry if this is another case of that. I don't see much potential for improvement here though). Noiratsi (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep this page: Personally, I think the page currently holding the handle Sparkie should be changed to Sparky Williams. Your point on "Australian slang and I don't know how widespread it is": The phrase Sparkie is not just an Australian term used for Electrician, it is in fact world-wide:
- Sparkie - Electrician http://www.lingo2word.com/lingodetail.php?WrdID=80167
- Sparkie - In the United Kingdom, "spark" or "sparkie" is slang term for an electrician. http://electrician.askdefine.com/
- Sparkie - Sparkie - Electrician http://wikitravel.org/en/Australian_slang#People
- Electrician=Sparkie, Builder=Bricky, Carpenter=Chippy... http://www.vwt4forum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1264644
- Sparky - An alternative spelling, a common slang term in Australasia for an Electrician. Also occasionally used in engineering as slang for an electrical engineer — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryHayes (talk • contribs) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree that a subject that "doesn't have an article" should not be listed as a possible meaning of a word/phrase. Sparkie! is a very well known UK record producer. It should be present on a dis page. HenryHayes (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we don't have an article for Sparkie the record producer—if you or someone else creates one, then it would be a valid disambiguation entry, no question. As it stands it makes no sense to direct the reader to Record producer when they're looking for "Sparkie". As for "Sparkie" meaning electrician, the important question is whether someone might type "Sparkie" when looking for the page about "Electrician". If they might, it's a useful entry. If not, it's better suited to Wiktionary. Like I said, I don't know the word so I don't know. See WP:DDD for quick dos and don'ts and WP:DAB for more details. In its current form I feel this page really only has a single valid entry (i.e. an entry pointing to an existing article that might reasonably be titled "Sparkie") --Noiratsi (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move Sparkie to Sparkie Williams to make way for "Sparkie" as the primary dab page, add Sparkie (satellite), link it to wiktionary, and to Sparky. If a Sparkie! article for the record producer is created it can also be added. I would like to delete Sparkie (disambiguation) but the editors who do redir work would want to keep it as a redir to Sparkie. BTW, sparkie or sparky (prabably the latter) is slang for an electrician here in New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added enough entries for it to be a viable dab page. Alternatively, it could be merged to Sparky. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid disambiguation page. Could perhaps be merged with Sparky. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid dab page (see WP:DABMENTION which justifies entries for items without their own articles if mentioned in another article). I've tidied it up to correct format. Incidentally, in my personal version of UK English the word for an electrician is "sparks". (As in "the plumber will talk to the sparks about the boiler controls".) PamD 17:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 'sparks' / 'sparkie': Different strokes - different people say it in different ways, IMHO, more reason to have this DAB page distinct from the others.

Comment I have boldly moved Sparkie to Sparkie Williams so that it can be the primary dab page (or a redir to Sparky).
- Comment Now that PamD has moved Sparkie to Sparkie Williams, this makes way for Sparkie to now redirect to Sparkie (disambiguation). HenryHayes (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. That's been done. Wawk, now where's my cracker? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't but it is now. We need to make it the primary dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkie Williams is the main topic, so Sparkie should still redirect there, with a redirect hatnote to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based upon the work done to the dab and that it now has nothing to do with the slang term this appears to meed WP:DABMENTION. Mkdw ^talk 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded. postdlf (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerade (Nicki Minaj song)[edit]

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

A single chart position does not make a song notable per WP:NMUSIC. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded - nowhere does it say in NMUSIC that it must have multiple charts (although I will admit the wording is very woolly and can be interpreted either way) - however, for me, it fails another criteria of WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. I do not see how there is enough verifiable material, from a quick Google search, for this to justify an article. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then protect the article as it has twice been reverted from being a redirect, both times by IP-based users. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lukeno94. A separate article is simply not needed, and it's covered at the Pink Friday article. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Lukeno94 JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Agreed. Usually, a chart position will suggest notability but I'm reluctant with this one. Google News archives found one minor mention here and speculation Britney Spears was going to be featured on the song here and confirmation that she was not here. Aside from this, I'm seeing much to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Bonus track on deluxe edition of PF:RR but not the re-release (The Re-Up). Not notable at all. —Andrew_stalk 06:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Temp Protect per above PianoDan (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Based upon WP:NSONG the article does not have enough material to warrant a standalone article. I think we should wait and see if the IP's continue to stop the redirect now that its been taken to an AfD and (seeming) consensus reached. Mkdw ^talk 23:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded. Michig (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HOV Lane (song)[edit]

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

Per WP:NMUSIC, this song is not notable. It does not have significant primary coverage from 3rd party reliable sources. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded. Grande (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded - I found a brief mention here where it is compared to a Rihanna song and brief reviews here, here and here. I found this which interviews the song's producers and I wouldn't exactly call this a review because it mainly brands the song as "braggy". It seems the song has received a small amount of attention but it seems it has never charted and more importantly, there hasn't been any significant attention (as far as I'm aware). SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with the above. —Andrew_stalk 06:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am for deletion.It doesn't have references.--Nikinikolananov (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the article when a redirect would be more appropriate? The article does not have any references but the links I provided above prove the song exists. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 26 December 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. Michig (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glen R. Hines[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any evidence the subject of this article meets our notability requirements. Please note that although the article has issues, including orphan, self-ref, etc, those are not the reasons for this listing. The article appears to be promotional in nature, and was written entirely by User:Grh17 and User:Grhines2, which suggests a strong COI. Killer Chihuahua 15:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: I'm not seeing any grounds for this person passing WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to pass WP:BIO. A fine officer I am sure, but just another cog in the military justice machine who happened to catch cases with known defendants. EricSerge (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Solid, but not extraordinary career. Not notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nomination; he's just a military attorney. I was considering whether we could merge this content to one of the cases he's handled (some of which, we have articles on) but I don't think that would really work without being a distraction from the primary subject. Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 29 December 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. Michig (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth harmony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fifth harmony

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC. The group has a bit of significance as it finished The X Factor but only finished third. Mediran (t • c) 12:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - per WP:BAND (WP:NMUSIC) which suggests that a band may be notable if it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." or "has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". It meets both criteria with sources like: [10], [11], [12] and [13]. Nimuaq (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: your third source is to a yahoo blog, which does not meet WP:RS by any definition. Killer Chihuahua 15:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Lyndsey Parker is the Managing Editor of Yahoo! Music and the author of Yahoo!'s Reality Rocks music blog ([14]), thus a Yahoo employee , whose interviews are too often cited in Wikipedia (see [15]). There is a distinction between blogs that are self published and blogs published by the news outlets, according to WP:SPS, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.". Nimuaq (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, we accept Reality Rocks these days? Eh, things change. Still not the best source for supporting a Keep on an Afd, regardless. Killer Chihuahua 18:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it all depends on the subject of the Afd, if it was about a science topic, I'd seek academic sources, but in this particular case, the subject is about a music band and that third source is from a music journalist who has been working as the Managing Editor of Yahoo! Music for 14 years and conducted an interview with the band that is hosted at Yahoo! Music website, so I think it is a pretty good source that meets the "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" description the criteria seeks. Nimuaq (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on procedural grounds Proper casing of group's name Fifth Harmony already redirects to a well-sourced section in List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. No need for duplication of information, and per the AfDs of last year's top-placing group Lakoda Rayne (nom 1) and Lakoda Rayne (nom 2), until they do something involving recording an album or even stay together beyond the show, a redirect is fine. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Nate, all of the sources I added above are also related to that TV show, and if the band has a section on that article with a proper redirect, they can guarantee a stand-alone article when the information on that section grow beyond the scope of List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2). Nimuaq (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate. This seems to be a recreation of a previously deleted topic (which was eventually merged into List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2), and the original article made a redirect). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 applies Courcelles 02:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash ku[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No much sources, links only targeted to websites of orgs. The subject is only a chairman of a non-notable foundation. Mediran (t • c) 11:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, not notable and only primary sources given. noq (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 04:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BLP. Mkdw ^talk 07:34, 29 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyetothe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KanyeToThe

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

Same problems that arose in the last AfD for this website mainly because it's a copypaste of that article (possibly speediable?) and t's still not passing WP:WEB anymore than it was a year ago. As before, not much claim to notability, WP:BEFORE searches aren't much help in ascertaining WP:N because results are clogged with self-promotional pieces, the only WP:RS which I found is the one currently on the page which is for an award of next to no note from a notable party which doesn't really cut it for me. tutterMouse (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Any kindly admin can move this nom to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KanyeToThe (2nd nomination) if they need to. tutterMouse (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not finding anything relevant on Gnews, nor anything remotely resembling a secondary source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. No news articles after a Google search. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 10:07, 30 December 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. Michig (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Language Interpreters Association of New Zealand[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. all the sources are primary. I could find only 1 hit in nz herald. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From New Zealand Government's website, "The Sign Language Interpreters Association of New Zealand (SLIANZ) is the national professional body for sign language interpreters". It is sufficient for me to vote in favor of keeping this article in Wikipedia. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

being a national professional body is not a criterion for notability. This does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH . LibStar (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this association's name is being mentioned in few more websites like from Deaf association website Most NZSL Interpreters in New Zealand are registered with the Sign Language Interpreters Association Inc.. Every country has few "education for blinds", "education for deaf" organizations No one stalks about them. Searching in Google might be a good way to judge notability of a young female model, but, may not be helpful for a national body who works for sign language interpretation. One more thing, in the article it is said- This translation article is a stub., but I can not understand (see the "interwiki") from where they have translated! There we might get few more sources! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please demonstrate existence of significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my last post, I attempted to say not all organizations are significantly covered by digital media depending on what kind of work they are doing. I have never seen full coverage of pension schemes or well known orphan homes in newspapers! I don't think you and also I can tell the name of the best braille or blind education researcher of your or my country and can collect any digital source for him. The 2-3 digital sources I have seen is sufficient for me to give a "keep" vote here specially after learning that this is the national professional body of a country where sign language is also the second official language. In my last post I posted a query on the source of translation (if it is translated), there we may get some more good non-English sources! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the sources merely confirm existence, sources do not have to be digital, see WP:OFFLINE. again being a national body is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, sign languge is also the second official language of New Zealand JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't demonstrated if any notability criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the national body of one of NZ's official languages, I would tend to concur that this fact alone gives enough reason to justify an article. Schwede 66 05:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Schwede66 and maybe I am being a bit charitable to those who are deaf. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Santhosh Pandit (non-admin closure). --LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minimolude Achan[edit]

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

WP:Crystal, no indication of notability Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to satisfy WP:NFILM either. Mkdw ^talk 08:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see some reliable coverage in just the first page of my gSearch. There's probably more out there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not trying to be argumentative but where? I see nothing but the two unreliable sources already on the article, neither of which mention the release date, and a bunch of YouTube vids. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about these links? 1 2 3 4. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the English links say anything about a release date, and I don't read whatever language the others are written in. Do they mention a release date? Because if they don't, then it is WP:Crystal. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an upcoming film from a famous malaylam film director/actor/producer from Santhosh Pandit, kerala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssspkerala (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this :- This is going to be superb film in the history of malayaam film industry.. from Super direcotr & Super actor Mr. Santhosh Pandit....This article is needed to get updates from this movie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallu50005 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Ssspkerala and User:Mallu50005 are single purpose editors both editing the same two articles. Based upon their wording 'super director' and 'super actor' its likely these two accounts are directly associated with the subject and represent a COI if not the same editor. Mkdw ^talk 09:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film, COI issues, and is a part of blatant propaganda through net. Salih (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a Malayalam movie and I can see few more sources in Malayalam web too! But, the image is a copyright violation. I'll report that! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Google results mentioned above, only first two sources say something about the movie, but they are exact replica and are from the same URL. Most of the other online sources either user contributions or unreliable. If an article about the movie can be found in any one of the mainstream English/Malayalam newspapers such as The Hindu, Malayala Manorama, or Mathrubhoomi, I will change my !vote to keep. Salih (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In more than one AFD discussion I have shown, Google does not index Indian newspapers properly! Can you ask a native Malayalam speaker? They can manually search in Malayalam newspaper or provide the best insight if the film is notable or not and how? --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native Malayalam speaker:) I don't see any reviews of this film in any of the Malayalam newspapers. Salih (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be surprised if ANY newspaper is doing anything in-depth on a film that's still a reasonable way from release. Either way, both this and the Superstar Santhosh Pandit are very bad articles, that show no real claim of being important - and I raise my eyebrows at the fact that this Santhosh Pandit is doing absolutely everything, according to the article (although it does seem to be possible, given the Indian Times article about his first film)... Lukeno94 (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Uh! That article needs to be moved to Santosh Pandit. It seems an admin is needed there to move the page!~~--Tito Dutta (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 22:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does that work, when everything I've seen names him as Santhosh? I'm confused now. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One man army! Anyway, from Times of India But Superstar Santhosh Pandit is almost like a mainstream film..., that's the only reliable English source I could find so far! --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Santhosh Pandit. Allow return once release can be confirmed. Fine with a copy being userfied to article creator at User:Ssspkerala/Minimolude Achan for continued expansion and sourcing as we wait. This might or might not become a well-covered film when released, but per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON until we have a lot more for an unreleased film, an article is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per reports in Television channels, the film alreadfy starts rolling.
Anish Viswa 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santhosh Pandit per MQS. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Yes redirect to Santhosh Pandit per MQS and wait and see how it grows or goes as the WP:TOOSOON - regards - Youreallycan 21:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Courcelles 02:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

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

It is a list that does not really add anything for the reader. I have just now split out Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article and the contents of this page need only be a mention or even some ext links on that page. There is too much of a fixation on lists by WP editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 05:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. 05:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another minor detail, and the reference just lists the refuges without stating anywhere they are "at risk". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the new article, which I agree seems like a better editorial presentation than a couple of lists. Note that this didn't necessarily need an AfD discussion unless it was contested. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge could be easily integrated into the new article. petrarchan47 t c 22:24, 29 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

removed PROD per WP:PROD. Reason for PROD (by User:discospinster) was "Article does not indicate how band is notable per WP:BAND. References are either self-published, blogs, or sources of unclear reliability (or link no longer works). Claims of being "censored" are backed up only by self-published sources."Illia Connell (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to indicate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 30 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition (Freak Seed album)[edit]

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

Non-notable music album and Google News and Books searches provided nothing. I should that the artist's article, Freak Seed, has also been nominated for deletion. A different search for this album provided unreliable and somewhat useless sources including a blog here, forum post here, an album profile here and CD reviews listed at the Freak Seed website here. I initially planned to PROD this but my message would've exceeded the space. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The album isn't notable enough for a standalone page. 1292simon (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band fails WP:BAND and this fails WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to snow globe. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RainGlobes[edit]

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

Cool as they sound, it is probably WP:TOOSOON for this article about a very new company/product which is almost (but not quite) WP:PROMOTIONAL. At best, probably a passing mention on Snow globe would be sufficient for now until these globes take off in their own right - if they do! Mabalu (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to snow globe. I found a whopping 3 sources for this novelty product, which isn't enough to suggest to me that they've had any sort of lasting notability. It's enough to maybe give them a one line mention somewhere in the article if we could find a way to mention it. It sort of falls along the lines of the "forced air globe" or the "tornado globes", which are themselves a branching off of the basic snow globe. But an article to itself? Nah. It's not that notable and may never be.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to snow globe, since this seems to be a variant of that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Chunkaiev[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability requirements established by WP:NMMA. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: FAILS WP:NMMA.~~ Willdawg111 (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 15:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 23. Snotbot t • c » 03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find 5 notable opponents and one notable event for a top tier, now defunct company, namely Pride. He meets WP:NMMA as the guideline stands right now. Mazter00 (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the guideline for determining notable opponents. We have other fighters who are coming up a little short for notability based off of not having the top tier organzation fights who have notable oppoenent. If there is a guideline somewhere for this, please share so we can save some of these other fighters. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit of a catch-22 - a notable opponent has his own article.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was gonna be my answer. If an opponent isn't on Wikipedia, clearly that opponent wasn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. However, if it's a bluelink (opponent), that must mean that that opponent is notable enough to have its own article. If that wasn't the case etc etc... In this case, the one event that has a bluelink (events), is Pride. Someone has concluded that Pride in it's haydays was a toptier company, and it says in the guideline WP:NMMA that 3 fights for a toptier is good enough. If we follow it to the letter, this AfD fails. Mazter00 (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting a notable opponent does not make you notable - even if you win. Notability is not inherited. Are you notable because you fought someone who later went on to be come notable or is that just a side note. Fighting for a top tier organization a defined number of times is far easier to quantify.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article on Wikipedia is not a guarantee of notability, and not having an article doesn't mean that a subject is not notable. That's why we keep creating articles that we should have and deleting articles that we shouldn't have. --Michig (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fariba Ahmadi Kakar. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 20:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fariba Ahmedi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, fails WP:POLITICIAN -- Patchy1 02:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same person as Fariba Ahmadi Kakar, should be redirected.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Courcelles 02:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Cthulhu: Beyond the Mountains of Madness[edit]

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

Unreleased game product that is in no way notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. At best it's worth a brief mention in the article of the game this was supposed to be a sequel to... and all that article does mention about it is that it was supposed to exist but doesn't. Tried just redirecting out but another editor insists on reverting. DreamGuy (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This: [16]

But I'll also say I find maybe especially weird/hilarious-sad how he's so concerned about how I avoided unnecessarily sperging about the related games in "the article of the game" (which is GA). --Niemti (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, discuss the article, not the nominator. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the released game's article. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Seems to be little content at article, Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth seems to be a great candidate for a merge/redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth - That's what we do with cancelled direct sequels usually, and this article doesn't seem to have the vast amounts of independent coverage to stand by itself. Salvidrim! 06:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Salvidrim's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Courcelles 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Cthulhu: Destiny's End[edit]

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

Unreleased game product that is in no way notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. At best it's worth a brief mention in the article of the game this was supposed to be a sequel to... and all that article does mention about it is that it was supposed to exist but doesn't. Tried just redirecting out but another editor insists on reverting. DreamGuy (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy is clearly not aware of the whole category cancelled video games (with hundreds of titles). Or this, for example.

Also, he hates plots in video games (must-be in video game articles) and template "Empty section". Very, very strange. --Niemti (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His thoughts on plot sections are irrelevant to whether or not this article is notable. Outside of questioning a bad faith nomination or failing to follow through on WP:BEFORE, this isn't an examination on the nominator - it's about the article at hand. Stick to commenting on that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There does seem to be a few reliable sources out there, but not many... Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 03:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple RS'es documenting its abortive proto-existance. Having said that, the best solution is probably to find somewhere to merge it to, but that's an editorial decision not requiring AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging can very well be discussed here as well, especially if there are editors that are challenging merging/redirecting... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge - Not sure about this. There is a little coverage, but there's really not much here. Half the article seems to be the lead, reiterating the rest of the article, and a rather large quote ripped from the game's archived website. It seems like it could be merged/redirected into a "Legacy" or "Sequels" section to the Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Unsure for now, it kinda depends if I or someone else can find more to put in there at this point... Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth - That's what we do with cancelled direct sequels usually, and this article doesn't seem to have the significant independent coverage to stand by itself (although it certainly has enough to be discussed in the parent article). Salvidrim! 06:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Salvidrim's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:33, 26 December 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. Courcelles 02:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Cannon[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP, looks like blatant selfpromo and advertising. I could not find independent third party reliable sources. The Banner _talk 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will note that the All Music credits page for this person list him primarily as an engineer, not a producer. It seems he decided to go into production, created a web page and decided to advertise on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 23 December 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. Courcelles 02:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huma Tanweer[edit]

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

I published this at the request of the editor who wrote it. However, it is unreferenced, and the works appear to be print-on-demand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 19:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 23:04, 29 December 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoke (Australian band)[edit]

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

This band does not appear to meet the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. Many customized searches in GNews and Books have not yielded any coverage in reliable sources. Sources in the article are unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes, and one is primary that doesn't mention the band. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching on both band names, there are several pieces of coverage in Australian sources that probably would not pass WP:RS, e.g. The AU Review: [17], [18], thedwarf.com.au: [19], [20], and one that would: Herald Sun. Not enough to support an article at the moment, I think. --Michig (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BAND. 1292simon (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no demonstration of WP:BAND being met. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 26 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustics (Lydia EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM recently self released album has no substantial repeated editorial discussion. -MJH (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one review ([21]), but not enough for an article. The main details can be noted in the discography article. Given the title it won't be a useful redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS; no redirect indicated because of title. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruqayyah Boyer[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT, also entire article can be found word for word on other sites, which means it's also a potential copyvio. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FreeRangeFrog's statement on Alexia Viruez AFD. Precedent set. Also Boyers got international attention for falling during the preliminary competition.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Miss Universe 2012. Falling over on-stage does not make a person notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - There is precedent for having articles on those who have won national contests and go on to represent their country in an international contest such as this. Mabalu (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per beauty contestants precedent. Besides, it's not one event, it's two: Miss Guayana and Miss Universe (yes, I know they link together, but that's irrelevant.) Lukeno94 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If there are two potential places to redirect a bio to - in this case Miss Universe 2012 and Miss Guyana Universe (which admittedly needs a lot of work done) - then WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply, IMO. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Polygonal number. Michig (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myriagonal number[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Polygonal number:No sources supporting notability except OEIS since May 2011. See also Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Is Myriagonal number notable at all? Inspector (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Polygonal number Except for a single code snippet and the entry in OEIS, I could find no mention of myriagonal numbers independent of Wikipedia. There is not enough notability for a standalone article, but the concept is verifiable. I've added myriagonal numbers to the Table of values in the Polygonal number article for the potential redirect. Mark viking (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark viking. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 21:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per WP:NUMBER. There are an infinite number of different kinds of polygons, and therefore an infinite number of different sequences of polygonal numbers; we can only keep a small finite number of the interesting ones, and this isn't one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, with the caveat that for interesting we should read notable, otherwise the smallest uninteresting number would be interesting enough to merit an article. In passing, "Myriagonal" and "Myriagon" are unknown to ZMATH. Deltahedron (talk) 07:27, 24 December 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.