< 23 December	25 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 delete. Speedy deleted (G3 is probably closest) per previous AfDs Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARTPOP - The Singles[edit]

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

Speedy delete, just part of a whole series of unsourced articles similar to Pink Friday: The Pinkprint, Strut (Nicki Minaj song) The Pinkprint, Kill The Bitch and Classic (Nicki Minaj song) most of which have been deleted as none are confirmed or reliably sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:11, 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. No prejudice towards recreation if event occurs and meets notability requirements, so please be wary of deleting any future version under WP:G4. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Super League T20[edit]

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

Speculative cricket tournament with only passing mentions on cricket forums and facebook. Fails WP:CRIN. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, with no problem of it being recreated if it happens and passes the notability threshold. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not needed as we don't know it happens or not. Zia Khan 14:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still a speculative tournament. Latest newspaper article is from October 31, says Board has established tentative dates, but that last few matches could conflict with Indian Premier League and some stars would overlap. Nothing in last 2 months to show that it will be made definite. Article can be restored if tournament ever happens. Donner60 (talk) 09:26, 31 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 point in continuing this AfD per the others, there are also BLP issues here Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strut (Nicki Minaj song)[edit]

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

Speedy delete, just a whole series of unsourced articles similar to Pink Friday: The Pinkprint, The Pinkprint, Kill The Bitch and Classic (Nicki Minaj song) all of which need deleting as none are confirmed.! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per above, poorly sourced. JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:52, 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. No point in keeping this running any further, one of a series of unsourced articles by a single user Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic (Nicki Minaj song)[edit]

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

Speedy delete, just a whole series of unsourced articles similar to Pink Friday: The Pinkprint, The Pinkprint, Strut (Nicki Minaj song) and Kill The Bitch all of which need deleting as none are confirmed.! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per above, poorly sourced JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:53, 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. delldot ∇. 00:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Assignment (unreleased film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film from non-notable director, not even released; barely a footnote in Culp's biography. Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Found only passing mentions which are already in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently it has been released, but "languishing around the festival circuit for a couple years now" indicates it hasn't made much of a splash. Its only real chance at notability is being Robert Culp's last film, but Culp wasn't really an A-list star. Note that The Assignment (2010 film) redirects there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. I've attempted to research the topic and cannot find much coverage at all. It probably would have gotten more if it was actually released. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film does not have the coverage to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 06:05, 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 delete. Speedied per G10 as it contained BLP issues Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kill The Bitch[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no reason given. Non-notable track, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALLL TheLongTone (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC) No sources either.TheLongTone (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, just a whole series of unsourced articles similar to Pink Friday: The Pinkprint, The Pinkprint, Strut (Nicki Minaj song) and Classic (Nicki Minaj song) all of which need deleting as none are confirmed.! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:33, 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. Those that argued for deletion brought up policy-based verifiability concerns, as well as those about notability. delldot ∇. 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Republican Party[edit]

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

Not notable. All four sources are to a blog. As far as I can see this alleged party is limited to a blog and a facebook page (with only 177 likes in two years). No outside sources at all, no candidates, no registration as party. Dagko (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom, not a significant political party JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a significant political party. Official website is a blog that hasn't been updated for almost a year.Ngfan1 (talk), 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor that we treat political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections the same way we treat rivers, towns, highways, high schools, insect species, and professional athletes, keeping them automatically regardless of their size or ideology. This is the sort of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you wish a policy-based rationale, it is: WP:IGNOREALLRULES — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't actually a political party - its blog hasn't updated in a year, it was never registered, had no news coverage, no elected officers, and it never had any membership at all. It was just a blog and a facebook page. There is not one outside source for the page.--Dagko (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You guys DO KNOW that the Jefferson Republican Party is another way of saying Democratic-Republican Party which already has a well sourced article. This article is just a duplicate topic. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is something distinct, a modern group. --Dagko (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage in reliable secondary sources to be found. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A High Beam search for the exact phrase "Jefferson Republican Party" yielded 3 results, none of which were about this modern third party group. The last entry on the blog "Jefferson Republican Party" was made January 1, 2012. This group appears to be moribund. Certainly they can not be very large or active. Dagko's description is correct as far as I can discover. Donner60 (talk) 07:45, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsui Wah Restaurant[edit]

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

Very promotional article on possibly non notable chain of restaurants. Text reads like a direct translation from primary and affiliated sources in original language, possible copyvio? Possibility that this may pass notability hence bringing to discussion, Mabalu (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Mabalu Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 19:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. - It's tempting to hit the delete button on this one with it's terribly promotional content and language. But being written like an advertisement isn't proper grounds for deletion if the topic is notable and the article can realistically be written into one appropriate for wikipedia. The restaurant chain has attracted enough independent commentary from reliable sourses that it appears to pass WP:GNG, but It's a terribly weak pass because of how localized all the coverage is, see Wikipedia:Places of local interest. I hate it when people use wikipedia to promote their thing, but this seems notable enough that I vote it still be included in WP. See Wikipedia:ORG#Special note: advertising and promotion. I'm open to good arguments against its general notability. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - nuke all the offending promotional material and rewrite according to the available references, which are all independent reliable sources (including South China Morning Post). The chain itself is a listed company trading in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and has branches in Macau and mainland China. If this is deleted as just "local interest" then I would really question Wikipedia's commitment against WP:systemic bias. _dk (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, support rewrite/mass deletion of promo stuff. Company is a publicly listed company, which makes it definitely notable (HSI:1314). Dengero (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - The topic has received just enough coverage (that I've found from sources available online) to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

South China Morning Post - [1], [2]
Macau Daily Times - [3]
Summary of coverage in The Standard - [4] (scroll down)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey A. Hutchings[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:PROF. He has done a lot of stuff but not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article (unfortunately, because he has done some good work IMO). The page reads more like a cv than a Wikipedia article. Side issue: this is another article that I have seen come out of the AfC process that needs a lot more work to be presentable i.e. layout per MOS. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 04:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar lists 20 papers with over 100 citations each. Even if this field is highly cited that is a clear pass of WP:PROF criterion 1. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is that "significant impact" from "independent sources"? It does tip the scales towards keep but not enough IMO. And I would have thought "independent sources" would be those outside of academia. Also, how many bio articles should we have? Are we in danger of becoming a Whos Who rather than an encyclopaedia? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Outside academia" is a ludicrous standard, much like requiring sources to be "outside biology" for articles about animal species or "not including professional movie reviewers" for articles about movies. And those 20 papers with 100 citations each give approximately 2000 independent sources. Usually in this context independent is taken as meaning not under the control of the subject or the subject's employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of circa 40 gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. The nominator will find the answers to his questions in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as well as passing criterion 1 of WP:PROF, he also passes criterion 5 (as the holder of a named chair). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Adam[edit]

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

None of the references are WP:RS. All are user-contribution sites like wikipedia. Seems to a Neologism Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, this article has no redeeming features. Andrew (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering all the social-networking media involved, it may become notable, but it is TOOSOON. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article dedicated to a neologism (and a marginally misogynist one at that) with no reliable sources. When I saw this pop up at WP:DYK, I first thought it was an early April Fool's submission. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been added and now number three newspaper articles, two books, and numerous blogs and social media outlets. Frankly, Christmas Adam is celebrated more than HumanLight and maybe Festivus, other December 23 unofficial holidays that Wikipedia have long had articles on. Wenjanglau (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ^{[citation needed]} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:NEO. Perhaps we need to delete some of the other articles mentioned by Wenjanglau too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I love that Wikipedia has a broader encyclopedic view than Brittanica or World Book. Articles on relatively obscure (albeit real) celebrations like Festivus and Christmas Adam have articles, and I think that is very helpful. These articles answer questions for those who hear the phrases and aren't sure what they mean, and unlike an Urban Dictionary the Wikipedia article gives one a sense of the history and how widespread the holiday celebration is. Very helpful. Please keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.46 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Amazingly, GBooks comes up with one hit in 1867, but it doesn't readily pull up the two books on holidays which seem to be the main secondary and potentially reliable sources. These doesn't seem to be a single thing; it seems to be a clever/dumb thing that gets reinvented over and over. So it's really a bit of WP:OR to tie them all together in a single article. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, and Facepalm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girl Meets World episodes[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Pilot has just been announced, there is no actual info on the episodes. JDDJS (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without any significant information on the show and its episodes, it's too early to have an article on this. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; too early for this list (WP:CRYSTAL). Gong show 18:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously!? WP:TOOSOON. At least have the entire cast set and some actual episodes written before posting a List of article, and as usual I prefer for there to be two seasons before a List of episodes article is created. Also salt the title for about a few months because the children's network crufters will keep battering at this. Nate • (chatter) 19:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate. It's also a duplicate of Girl Meets World, currently prodded, which should probably be bundled for deletion here. Altered Walter (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list with no contents. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:01, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Prod was contested by the journal's editor. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original PRODder. This is the first time that I get an edit conflict when taking an article to AfD with Twinkle... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a small novel in response that hasn't appeared unfortunately - or was it deleted? Will attempt again tomorrow with links. The journal is listed on ProQuest, ABI Inform, PubMed, EBESCO Host and HealthPremier. Alternatively how many reader requests would qualify as notable? Stephenthorpe (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

Comment PubMed lists exactly 1 (one) article from this journal (see here. This one seems to have been included because it was uploaded into PubMed Central, which is a major database, but not a selective one. The other databases that you mention are not major and/or selective either. I'm not sure what you mean with "reader requests", but if you mean with that something like page views or article views, as you can see from WP:NJournals and WP:GNG, those do not contribute to establishing notability at all (for rather obvious reasons, I'd say). --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the reason for the 1 listing on the PubMed is due to the closed access nature of the journal. Copyright is shared with authors who are allowed to publish and submit their own articles for hosting.

Here is the link to the EBSCO Business Source Complete listing: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=dbaff0ab-7a27-4937-9109-83e546307020%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&jid=2ZJI ProQuest ABI/Inform Complete: http://search.proquest.com/publication/43244# JSTOR: citations are common for the short name of the journal as well: "Group+Facilitation": http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicResults?hp=25&la=&so=rel&wc=on&fc=off&acc=off&acc=off&bk=off&pm=off&jo=off&ar=off&re=off&ms=off&gw=jtx&Query=%22Group+Facilitation%22&sbq=%22Group+Facilitation%22&prq=%22Group+Facilitation+A+Research+and+applications+journal%22&mxpg=11&aori=off&vf=jo

I'm not sure what is meant by 'not major' and 'not selective', but when Proquest approached us for listing in 2006 and EBESCO in 2007 they were two of the major indices around. I do appreciate things have changed in such a long period of time since. They did select our journal for listing, not the other way around. I know you won't necessarily appreciate Google Scholar as a valuable third party source however, here are the citations on what is predominantly a closed access journal: http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?as_q=&as_publication=group+facilitation The journal has been submitted to Scopus, which can take up to 6 months for review I believe. One key challenge we have faced as an Editorial Board in listing on the Web of Science is the requirement for access to the password protected members-only section of the iaf-world.org website. The IAF Board were not so keen on access to the members-only section going to an unnamed individual for the purposes of an index listing. By "Reader Requests" I mean here's one example from Belgrade in Serbia:

Email with subject line "Wikipedia pages"
--- On Fri, 8/10/12, <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com> wrote: From: <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com> Subject: Wikipedia pages To: "Stephen Thorpe" Date: Friday, August 10, 2012, 9:35 PM Hi Stephen. Hope you are well - sure you are busy :) I recently discovered that there wasn't a page about IAF on Wikipedia and so I just created one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Facilitators I checked to see if there was an entry for the journal on Wikipedia and see that there isn't, so I wondered if you might want to create one. There are quite a few guidelines about creating Wikipedia pages but most of them seem to boil down to making it informational and neutral rather than promotional and partial. I wondered if you might want to create a page for the Journal. Best regards, <Name_Deleted> -- <Name_Deleted> MA Human Security & Peacebuilding, Certified Professional Facilitator Share in building hope at http://hopebuilding.pbworks.com and http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com View my pictures: <Name_Deleted> Visit http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com/

Email with subject line "Wikipedia pages"

--- On Fri, 8/10/12, <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com> wrote:

   From: <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com>
   Subject: Wikipedia pages
   To: "Stephen Thorpe"
   Date: Friday, August 10, 2012, 9:35 PM
   Hi Stephen. Hope you are well - sure you are busy :)
   I recently discovered that there wasn't a page about IAF on Wikipedia and so I just created one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Facilitators
   I checked to see if there was an entry for the journal on Wikipedia and see that there isn't, so I wondered if you might want to create one.
   There are quite a few guidelines about creating Wikipedia pages but most of them seem to boil down to making it informational and neutral rather than promotional and partial.
   I wondered if you might want to create a page for the Journal.
   Best regards,
   <Name_Deleted>
   -- 
   <Name_Deleted>
   MA Human Security & Peacebuilding, Certified Professional Facilitator
   Share in building hope at http://hopebuilding.pbworks.com and http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com
   View my pictures: <Name_Deleted>
   Visit http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com/

Can you please advise: I don't want to waste anyone's time - should I just wait until it's listed in Scopus and then come back as it will then meet the notoriety requirement? I can address the need for adding independent references to and possibly from the article if allowed. Stephenthorpe (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

I collapsed the email you posted above; it is not the sort of verifiable source that will influence this discussion. If you are aware of independent sources that discuss the subject in depth, this discussion is an excellent place to list them. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's neat that you can hide it and unhide it.
Now to clarify briefly - the email message inserted wasn't an attempt to provide a verifiable source, but to respond to the request above by --Randykitty to explain what I meant in my statement about "reader requests". I've provided an exemplar that I hope demonstrates what i meant. I have a number of others, but that one was concise.
Now academic journals aren't typically a hot topic in the local media (particularly if they have required an association membership to access). People don't typically write reviews about them like they do with books. It's also not one from the natural sciences - who are all metric focused. So do you possibly have a list of independent sources for academic journals that would satisfy the requirement or is it just the two open bibilometric indices of Scopus or Web of Science that are considered independent and verifiable? If all that can be considered is those two I guess I'll simply need to come back in 6 months and try again once the journal's listed in Scopus and it can be considered as independently verifiable by your team? What is published here outlines some of the challenges in this arena: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal#Prestige.

Would references in other books qualify? facilitator blogs? review articles on academic journals? It's a reasonably niche arena for academic journals on groupwork and GFJ is the only international one and it's published by the global association in this emerging professional arena with 1,300+ members in over 70 countries. If Scopus or Web of Science is all that counts and EBSCo and ProQuest, Google scholar have issues then I'm not sure there is any opening for possibility made available here?222.154.11.12 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

Under Caveat 2 in WP:NJournals "...however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources." Why can this caveat not simply be applied in this case? 222.154.11.12 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

That caveat has to do with verifiability, not notability. Even if a journal satisfies the notability criteria, it also has to satisfy WP:V. It offers relaxed criteria for verifiability, but notability has to be independently established. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that the journal meets WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. This is a well established journal that is indexed in major databases that focus on the scholarly study of business (EBSCO's Business Source series, ABI/INFORM, and several ProQuest databases). Additionally, a quick web search shows that articles in the journal have been cited repeatedly across both books on facilitation and scholarly articles on facilitation that appear in other journals. However, the article definitely needs to be fleshed out to help illustrate that fact (which I'm happy to help in accomplishing). Thanks! Phoenixred (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Judging by the discussion around the creation of WP:NJournals, one of the primary motivations for creating this guideline was that it is often difficult to establish general notability for journals that are used as reliable sources in Wikipedia. So far, only one article from this journal is cited in Wikipedia (in Nonviolent communication). Also, it would be easier to judge notability of the journal if the article on its publisher, International Association of Facilitators, did a better job of establishing notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:02, 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, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 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 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Joseph Conner[edit]

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

Only notable for part in 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. (WP:ONEEVENT). Trevor Donald Brewer listed for same reason.TheLongTone (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recipient of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, German nationwide press coverage. --NiTen (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany is split into a number of classes and over 5,000 can be awarded every year. He appears to have received the Officer's Cross, one of the lower levels, certainly nowhere near notable enough for automatic inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination and input by Necrothesp. EricSerge (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Necrothesp. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG in part due to This and this PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Nothing special. Anyone who receives any honour, no matter how low, is likely to have media articles written about them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect; subject passes WP:GNG however is mainly notable per WP:BLP1E and is not very notable outside of the context of the event. Outside of the context of the event the subject does not pass WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, as the subject is not notable other than the event and the award received due to the event I believe that the article be merged and redirected to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. If the subject becomes notable outside of coverage relating to the event, the redirect can be replaced with an article again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 22 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, —Theo polisme 17:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this has been relisted, no good reason for doing anything other than changing this to a Redirect to the Frankfurt Airport shootings article has been put forward.18:33, 24 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 delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Ivy League[edit]

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

A neologism coined in a single news article from the 1960s that has not gained acceptance in the mainstram. See neologism policy. GrapedApe (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, nothing notable here. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perusing Google News and Google Books convinces me that there appears to be sufficient RS usage of the term to support this article. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google News (0 results), Google News archives (7 results) and Google Books (30 results) for the term "Catholic Ivy League" seems to indicate that the majority of returned results is due to the circumstance of the text using the identical sequence of words, eg, "Catholic, Ivy League graduates" as in "Catholics that are graduates of the Ivy League". It does not seem to be a commonly used term defining an understood grouping of schools in the majority of the the search results. The use of the term seems well insufficient for any standards of notability. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:54, 21 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, —Theo polisme 16:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crazypaco. Most of the results are false hits, ie. coincidental juxtaposition of these common words; additionally, others use the term in the same way that the original Time article did but not in reference to the same schools, making it another coincidence of coining rather than a topic. We won't have an article based on a single magazine story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Knight Masons[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ORG. The subject is a relatively small sub-organization within the broader framework of Freemasonry. A google search shows it to be based mostly in Ireland (with a few chapters in the US). Existence is not in question, but notability is... I can find no sources that are independent of the sub-organization itself. Even standard Masonic sources don't mention it. Merger may be an alternative to deletion, but I am not sure what the best merger venue would be (I could see some of the material being merged into our article on the Holy Royal Arch) Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be useful to do all those searches for the names of the various degrees within the KM, as well as "Green Degrees", which is another name for it, in order to exhaust the potential references. I'm not sure one way or the other on this one.--Vidkun (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of several obscure, often invitation-only Masonic organizations best described as appendant bodies of appendant bodies. Other such organizations include Order of Quetzalcoatl and Ye Antient Order of Noble Corks. The Knight Masons (not to be confused with the Knights Templar) are one of many of these organizations associated with the York Rite. My thought is to create an Appendant bodies of the York Rite article and merge this information into that along with the others. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 21:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faustus... before you create an article, see our article on the Allied Masonic Degrees which covers some of what you are talking about. Also... note the distinction between York Rite in the US, and Holy Royal Arch in the UK... its not quite the same thing.

The problem here is sourcing... before we write articles about various Masonic sub-orgs (whether individually or as part of an "Appendant bodies of..." article), please check to see that there are reliable independent sources that discuss the sub-groups in some depth. (we need sources from outside the sub-orgs... and ideally sources that are completely non-Masonic in origin). Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my Talk, AMD and "Appendant bodies of the York Rite" are not necessarily the same thing. Perhaps independent sourcing only merits a mention of the Knight Masons (and/or the AMD, for that matter) in a more generalized article. If the necessary sourcing is there, then we should dispense with all this and vote to retain. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 03:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the arguments to delete the article here only further support its need to exist. The Knight Masons would not fit clumped in with the HRA article because it's also open to Royal Arch Masons in the York Rite, it would not fit into the AMD article because trying to squeeze it into AMD is a uniquely American folly, and it really isn't considered closely associated with the York Rite as its degrees are more prominent in the Scottish Rite anyways. It is however the basis for the Order of the Red Cross, and portions of the Scottish Rite, and as such in notable in that respect alone. As for finding sources, Google books have a few, but it's going to take a trip to the library to read many of them PeRshGo (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that to lump Knight Masons into the Royal Arch or the AMD would be incorrect. However, to suggest the KM is an integral part of appendant body Freemasonry on a worldwide scale would be equally incorrect. It has NO BEARING whatsoever on the Scottish Rite or the KT Order of the Red Cross in the United States. I'd even go so far as to say most American York Rite Masons, even active ones, have never heard of the Knight Masons. So to keep worldwide scope intact, from a York Rite standpoint it's best to focus strictly on Royal Arch Masonry, Cryptic Masonry and Knights Templar, while keeping discussions of anything else ancillary. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 08:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focus, please.... the key issue here is whether there are reliable independent sources to support what we say about the organization. Without sources, our entire discussion becomes nothing more than a debate based on Original Research. The differences between the US and Irish systems are irrelevant if there are no sources.

PeRshGo... you say that Google Books has some sources... could you identify what they are? I would be happy to withdraw the nomination (even temporarily) if sources actually do exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Knight Masons serves as the foundation for both The Order of the Red Cross, and the 15th & 16th degrees in the Scottish Rite in the United States as well. The Order of the Red Cross specifically is nothing more than compressed Knight Masonry in order to fulfill the the traditional requirement for the Order of the Temple. As for Google books, this will have to do until I can track some stuff materials down. [5] PeRshGo (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that most of the sources that come up in that search are self-published by the Knight Masons themselves. Others (such as Freemasons for Dummies, which I have and was able to check), contain nothing more than a passing reference - not the substantial discussion that WP:NOTE and WP:ORG require.

That said, the search hits are enough for me to put the nomination on hold while we examine the sources in more detail. I originally tagged the article as needing sources a year ago, I am willing to be patient and give it another year... but I will renominate if the sourcing issue is not improved.

~~Nomination Withdrawn~~ Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, you may as well keep the nomination as JASpencer's recommendation for delete will keep this open for admin closure after 7 days. Mkdw ^talk 09:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? One would think a withdrawal by the AfD nominator would be a foregone conclusion. I'd NAC this, but I promised not to do that anymore. Too many people were upset ... Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does. If you read the wording of WP:SK. This is also reflected in WP:WITHDRAWN - Speedy Keep NAC, "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.". I only came across this myself after double checking the policy carefully. Mkdw ^talk 21:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blueboar's right there are no independent sources here, despite the number of Google hits. Seems rather large for there not to be anything. JASpencer (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 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, —Theo polisme 16:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One additional thought... I wonder if it is possible to separate the Degrees (ceremonies) that are conferred by this group from the group itself. The degrees are relatively old, dating to the 18th Century, and seem to have been precursors to (or at least had an influence on) some of the Scottish Rite degrees. More importantly, there are sources that mention them. (I am not sure it rises to the level of being notable enough for a stand-alone article... but if not, I think there is enough to justify a section in the Scottish Rite article).

The Order (as an organization), on the other hand, is significantly more modern... it was created in the mid to late 20th Century as a place where the old (obsolete) degrees could be resurrected, preserved and performed. And there do not seem to be many sources that discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know trying to separate "The Order" from the degrees is a very difficult process as each degree itself is an order. It was an order unto itself within Irish preceptories when it was still conferred under that jurisdiction. In addition it is arguable that its influence is greater on Commandery than the Scottish Rite through the Illustrious Order of the Red Cross as that degree was created for the sole purpose of replacing the Knight Masonic or "Red Cross Degrees" requirement for the Order of the Temple. If there is any rationale for a Knight Masonry article it's that it can and should serve as a content fork for two major Masonic appendant systems. PeRshGo (talk) 06:58, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braniff International Airways destinations[edit]

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

Non-notable destination list for long-defunct airline. No independent refs and one self-published one. This has been the subject of a long-running low level edit war to redirect to Braniff International Airways. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Braniff International Airways and lock it already. One source, and nobody except flight enthusiasts are looking up destination cities for an airline thirty years dead. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an article like this for pretty much all the major airlines. See Category:Lists of airline destinations, which includes plenty of defunct airlines, including for example, Pan Am destinations and TWA destinations. The information is readily sourceable from timetables and news articles. So why attack this particular article? I imagine someone is going to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this isn't about a few similar articles: practice shows a longstanding consensus that destination information should be part of the encyclopedic coverage of an airline. If some editors think that there's been an actual change in consensus about this, then let's have a real discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation to test that. Otherwise, deleting this particular list simply creates a new hole in our coverage of Braniff, which is the antithesis of encyclopedia building. -Arxiloxos (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'why attack this particular article?' Because, as I said in the nom, this article has been in a state of edit war for a long time. Note that Pan Am destinations and TWA destinations appear to have in depth independent sourcing, where as this page does not. I have no doubt that there is WP:ROUTINE sourcing for this, but that is not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Braniff International Airways and salt per nomination. Poor sourcing, continually recreated by what appear to be the same editor hiding behind an rotating IP. Nothing here that can't be incorporated into the main article.
Comment since I nominated this article User:Arxiloxos has made a heroic attempt to find and add sources. I commend them for that. None of the sources appears other than WP:ROUTINE to me and in particular there appears to be no in depth independent discussion of Braniff International Airways destinations. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that characterization. The material I've linked to so far is more than simple route announcements. And it's just a start. There are entire books and many, many lengthy feature articles about Braniff's history, and one of main things they discuss is how Braniff's route structure, and its unprecedented expansion to additional destinations in the late 1970s, led to its demise.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Braniff was one of the world's major airlines; the sources exist; and lists like this are part of pretty much every other comparable airline's coverage at Wikipedia. The evident determination of deletion advocates to see this deleted, nevertheless, is frustrating.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Braniff International Airways and lock per above. These destination lists are trivial at best even for a major airline, and only if it is still around, so the information might be useful to somebody. Smaller airlines do not warrant such lists, as the larger ones barely do themselves. Braniff was an american commuter airline with the vast majority of it's destinations being US cities, and didn't have anywhere near the world coverage of say, TWA or PanAm, and the complete lack of sourcing is proof of this. Braniff has also been long gone for 30 years or so. Aside from a small niche of enthusiasts, this old information is of no real use to anyone, and is certainly not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being a crap article is no reason to delete, just need improving. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and destination lists from defunct airlines are just as notable as current ones. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 14 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I can see both sides of this, I would like to point out that the article received 345 views in the month before this AfD went up, which is hardly a large amount, but even taking into account bot views or whatever, a few people are clearly using it. The article is very low quality, but there are probably enough references for this, even if they are trivial in nature, present. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the additional sources added since this AfD began push the article across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 02:37, 22 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable list of very little use but I am ok with a redir to break the stalemate. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the policy-based way of breaking a deadlock when there is no consensus for deletion. WP is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia contain historical as well as current information. WP is not an airline guide. If it were, we'd delete the article as soon as they went out of business. But the notability their routes had, remains forever. Even a few current users show there's a use fore the information. Even if nobody had looked at it last month, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to keep notable information around for whomever may want to use it in the future. I could suggest many possibilities besides airline buffs--checking historical references, checking mentions in fiction, studying the transportation history of a particular city . And even if the hobbyists were the only group, it's a sizable hobby, and in a sense WP is a combination of the interests of all significant hobbies. I myself have as little prospective interest as anyone else here, but that's not the way I judge notability. the encyclopedia isn't written for me alone. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 31 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) -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexxx (UK TV series)[edit]

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

(renamed on December 29, 2012 from Sexxx:Loaded TV Show - ^Wylie_Coyote 09:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

British TV Show, first started airing Nov/2012 on a specialty late night channel called "Loaded TV". Only sources are TV guides and a review. Google did not product any media coverage other than a media release and some "reviews" on British comedy websites. Originally was declined at AFC twice but was created by another experienced editor. Mike (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a legit British TV show. It's history at AfC has no bearing on the article's quality in it's present state, and the article should be judged as it stands now. At least three of the sources seem to be independent articles from mainstream newspapers or magazines about the subject matter, so the sources are significant, reliable, and verifiable, so it seems to meet WP:GNG. TV guides are also offered as sources here, so there is plenty of WP:NRVE. It's not self promotion or indiscriminate publicity. This is a decent Wikipedia Article in all respects. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep - Similar article on related subject here has been accepted no problem ^[1], whilst this one undfer discussion has more references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Bedan (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is fairly new and a start/stub. All it needs is expanding by an editor familiar with the show and/or British TV. — ^Wylie_Coyote 08:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independent coverage across multiple sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 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 Putt-Putt (series). MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putt Putt & Fatty Bear's Activity Pack[edit]

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

I couldn't find any coverage of this game in reliable secondary sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Humongous (game developer). I did a search for this game under the general term of "Putt Putt & Fatty Bear", but was unable to find anything to suggest that this game merits its own entry. I'd suggest a redirect to the page for the game series, but I'm not entirely sure that it merits an entry separate from the developer either. I vaguely remember seeing this around and since it was pre-Internet there might be sources out there that never got brought over to the net, but unless those sources can be found this will have to be a redirect for now.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 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) 02:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Putt-Putt (series). Since the Putt-Putt series has its own article, it seems to me that it's a more logical destination for a merge/redirect. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Putt-Putt (series) - All the other Putt-Putt games are already merged into the series article. The only other Fatty Bear article is under its own AfD. Salvidrim! 08:55, 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, there are no Reliable sources that establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Dreadstar ☥ 06:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Leveratto[edit]

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

Fringe writer who doesn't seem to meet WP:PEOPLE. The sources that work are written by him. This may be in response to my putting up some articles related to/source to him at AfD and my comments at WP:FTN, possibly hoping that if he has an article he could be considered a reliable source. Article creator is a new editor who has never edited any other articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Ignore: updated vote below. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTE, will just be a coatrack for fringe. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi, I'm the writer. This article is not a response to any other related articles. I'm not a new editor, I have created others articles in others languages. As per general notability guideline: Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage: There are 12 sources independent from the subject. These sources address the subject directly in detail, with no additional research. These sources are reliable: Nexusedizioni is part of the nexusmagazine.com network, which is far to be a a fringe magazine, but is respected all over the world. Sources are not required to be in English: I added multiple sources from Peruvian, Brazilian (Afotorm is the photographic archive of the city of Rolim de Moura) Bolivian and Italian journalists. Independent from the author: there is not self-publicity because there are not direct links to the web of Mr.Leveratto. These reliable sources presumed that this subject is suitable for inclusion. It is not a coatrack because it does discuss the nominal subject and it is not a cover for any related biased subject. Thanks, Cholo 50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholo50 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this and this say that it fails WP:NOTE very clearly. And your writing of any other articles has no relevance to this article at all. History2007 (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not links to his website but they are links to material he's written - that's not independent of the author. Nexus is "NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained". If that isn't fringe, what is? Publication there does not make him notable. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's notable and the links are reliable (Nexusmagazine). The links added by History2007 are not related to Mr. Leveratto but to Mr. Toscano, other writer.Franciscos58

Excuse me? Excuse me? Look at my links again. They are "specific searches" for Yuri Leveratto. Read them. Read them. Your statement is completely incorrect. Trust me, I know how to type. History2007 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, exactly how does he meet our notability guidelines? Please specify what bit of WP:PEOPLE or WP:GNG he meets? Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His claim to notability may have to be published in Nexus (magazine), of course, given that it is an "unexplained" and paranormal as the material that appears in that magazine. History2007 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He'notable, especially in Brazil and other South American countries. He brought to light the Madeira Fortress, a very important archaeological site, which proves that Andean people had control over the Amazon basin. In Italy he's known for his anti-globalist and pro-degrowth articles, a fact that was not specified by the creator of this voice.Archeologo40 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Archeologo40 is a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to articles promoting Leveratto or to AfDs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All sources are reliable especially the interview in Antika.itMiguel901 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've raised an SPI on some editors involved with articles related to Leveratto. Miguel1901 is a brand new account, never edited before, we have sock puppetry or meat puppetry going on here as there is no way a brand new editor could stumble upon this. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify -- We seem to be getting a lot of votes from the subject and his fan club. As I said on the AFDs on his articles, I would like to see his work appearing in peer-reviewed journals before I would be happy about keeping it. WP is not the right place for pre-publication interim reports. The fact that (accordingly to Archeologo40) he is pursuing archaeology as a means of promoting a political agenda makes me all the more suspecicious. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no notability and the sources are clearly self published.Nickm57 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: To user Peterkingiron: When I created the article I inserted only 12 sources, actually I could have add much more, especially like the first and the second here below: Archeomedia.net which is a well respected italian archaeological magazine, or like you mention peer-reviewed journal. Oher sources can be added like the others I am showing here: I am not adding them inside the article because I am not sure this is the right procedure.

[12]
[13]

ThanksCholo50 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Articles by the subject in blogs, online magazines, etc do not show notability, see WP:PEOPLE. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cholo just voted twice... Elections in Chicago used to be like that a few years ago.... History2007 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After going through the references in the article, searching in Google Colombia and Italy and just about everywhere I could think of, I am left with a small network of 3 fringe websites that seem to republish anything this person writes on his blog. None of them even remotely approaches WP:RS. I cannot establish notability under anything, even basic WP:GNG at this point. And the proliferation of SPAs here and the other related articles that have been deleted or are in the process of being deleted speaks volumes - so much effort that could be channeled into properly sourcing the articles instead. But of course, there are no real sources. And given the issues here I'd even recommend a WP:SALT of this title to the closing admin. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. //Gbern3 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article, fails GNG and WP:PEOPLE. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socks All of the editors !voting Keep except for Miguel, who I forgot to include, have been blocked as socks of Archeologo40. If this wasn't at AfD it could be deleted routinely as the creation of a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Snow Close No evidence of notability, overwhelming consensus for deletion once sockpuppet votes are disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lewer[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no rationale given. This person fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as has not played or managed in a fully-professional league) and also fails WP:GNG - yes there are plenty of sources but they are WP:ROUTINE i.e. run-of-the-mill sports coverage regarding change in jobs etc. and not the "significant coverage" required by GNG. Giant Snowman 10:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as he has not played at a significant level, thus failing guidelines as mentioned by other voters above. C 679 09:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 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. postdlf (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey Under 18 Development League[edit]

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

Children's football league which is not notable. C 679 09:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 10:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article needs more sources, especially ones totally independent of the subject. Considering the info provided in the article, it may very well be notable, but we need proof of this. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. I'm yet to find a case of a small under 18 league being notable. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are not going to be anywhere enough sources independent of the subject for this to pass GNG: and as it's a youth league, it's not notable by default as a competition. 7 teams compete in it, that's hardly a notable league. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The real difficulty here is that Guernsey only has a population of 66,000, so a youth league is unlikely ever to amount to very much in the wider scheme of things. Size is not the only consideration, of course, but I would not expect a youth sports league in a large city or county to have a Wikipedia entry. There would have to be something very remarkable about it to make it notable. --AJHingston (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:17, 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 Oddjob. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddjob's hat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Oddjob's hat

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

There is little of merit in this piece of fancruft that is not already in the Goldfinger (film) article. The one or two random facts that are not replicated in the Goldfinger article can be added with ease when the page is removed. SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has sufficiant neutral coverage and 3rd party sources to pass WP:GNG. Besides, I can't see where the section where it was on Mythbusters or Weapon Masters would fit into the Goldfinger article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could fit into the Goldfinger article the same way that the Ursula Andresses bikini fits into the Dr. No (film) article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were done in context of relation to the film. The Hat ones are not, If you check the Weapon Master programme, they don't at one point say Goldfinger but they do refer to Oddjob. That would show that it takes on a separate enitity from relation to the film. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: the auction of the bikini is nothing to do with the film and that's mentioned in the article. Similarly, see The Man with the Golden Gun (film), which has its own section about the golden gun prop (see here), which also discusses the 2008 theft of the prop. These mentions within the film's own articles are no different to any possible reference to the hat within the Golden Gun article . - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there wouldn't be reference to the hat in the Golden Gun article, because it wasn't in that film. Besides, the point I'm making here is that the article has sufficiant neutral coverage from a varity of sources to fulfill GNG and should be kept as such. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I think you may be being deliberately obtuse here. The props (bikini in Dr No and the golden gun in MWTGG) are covered in sufficient detail within their own film articles - certainly covering the same amount of information in this finely crafted piece of fancruft. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly fancruft when it goes beyond James Bond. The fact it is used to demonstrate chakrams or that it inspired video games shows that it is more than fancruft. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fact that is already covered, along with nearly everything else on this page, in the Oddjob article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything. The Weapon Masters usage, who made it, the chakram, who owned it before the 1998 sale, the 2002 exhibition in Bradford, where it was auctioned and the 2012 poll are not in there. If anything the stuff about it in the Oddjob article really belongs here as there is more info on it at this page and the info about it is badly written and badly sourced at the Oddjob page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Oddjob's hat treated like the bikini of Ursula Andress, it should be kept as a separate article. The bikini is an article that's separate from the Dr. No (film) article: White_bikini_of_Ursula_Andress. Fagles (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oddjob. The hat does seem to have expanded beyond the original film, but not IMO sufficiently to rate its own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article easily meets our notability guidelines. Merging with a broader article is indeed an option (a good one in my opinion) but this is not a reason for deletion, indeed it is a reason against deletion (WP:MAD). Thincat (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is little of merit in the nomination which seems only to be based upon the argument-to-avoid of WP:ITSCRUFT. The proposition that we can move facts from this article to another page is absurd because deletion would obviously hinder such action and be contrary to our editing and licensing policies. What's needed here, instead, is expansion of the article. For example, see Memoir of a Special Effects Maestro for detailed technical facts about the prop which have yet to be added to our coverage. Warden (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Not independently notable from the character, sorry p b p 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. The character is mostly just another thug. The article about the hat has many more sources and these demonstrate a history for the item which has persisted long after the actor had died. The sources cited for the character are, in fact, mostly about the hat. Warden (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two different television shows have made replicates to demonstrate how well it works, so it has had coverage outside the film. Dream Focus 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge per Erik) A proper merge to Oddjob is a consideration, but the topic of the character's hat has indeed received coverage in reliable sources... and such information suitable in an independent article would have to be included therein. That such sources speak toward the charater and usage is no more a concern than sources speaking about the USS Enterprise in relationship to Star Trek or a Light Saber in relationship to Star Wars. It is expected that iconic plot devices would be spoken of in relationship to the primary topic. Not a deal breaker. At a Christie's auction in 1998, the thing sold for £ 62,000.[20] It has been written of and discussed in context in multiple books and multiple reliable sources... just what is expected by WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I think that the hat is rather less notable than the USS Enterprise and the lightsaber. The latter two are recurring elements in their respective fictional universes, and I think that the elements' designs have received extensive coverage. There are a handful of interesting factoids about Oddjob's hat, but I do not think it can make up a separate article. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is an acceptable alternative... but does not require an outright deletion of a topic that is covered in multiple sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oddjob. I performed a search engine test in Google Books and Scholar, and while I found results about Oddjob's hat, I do not think that there is enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Oddjob and his hat are repeatedly closely associated, so I think it makes sense for the hat to be covered as part of an article about Oddjob. I would like to mention that the book Ken Adam: The Art of Production Design has some content about the hat (specifically, Oddjob's electrocution). Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is the type of article that may cross all the t's and dot all the i's for the GNG, talking about it out of context of either the character or the film makes it difficult to understand (particularly its use in the film which is then part of the Mythbusters comment). The title "Oddjob's hat" remains a valid search term and thus merge rather than delete makes sense. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Masem above, I agree that the GNG is met. However, I see no reason to mandate a merge as an AfD outcome, given that it has sufficient depth of independent RS coverage to justify its existence. A merge outcome is a possibility, but by no means a foregone conclusion that should be mandated as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an editorial decision. I'd have to concede that the GNG is met. There's enough coverage in third party sources to WP:verify notability, and provide real world context about the hat so it's not just a summary only description of a fictional object (something that Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT). But this is one of those circumstances where a cluttered stub article could be written as a nice couple of paragraphs and added to the main character entry. That creates the potential that the whole Oddjob topic/article could one day reach good or featured article status, which does better service to our readers. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I have opined above, I cannot and will not close this. But I would suggest to whomever does so that there is A) no consensus to delete,B) there does seem to be consensus that the information belongs somewhere within the project, and so C) a discussion about a likely merge belongs on the article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's unnecessarily bureaucratic. It's not an error to suggest merging at AFD. WP:NOTBUREAU states that "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." If there's a consensus to merge (and that is overwhelmingly the case), we shouldn't reject it because we insist on polemic keep/delete outcomes. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have no consensus to delete and the general consensus here seems to be for either a "keep per no con census" or a "close as keep and discuss a merge"... and I am not adverse to either one. A merge does not mean deletion of content, so a closer will note the consensus and discussions above... and as we do have some keeps, a discussion about just what information to merge will need to be done... on the talk page... with those advocating a keep discussing with those editors advocating a merge. Not at all overly bureaucratic. Simply accepting the guidelines and policy set up for just such action. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just wanted to make a comment on Shooterwalker's point original point. The stub class only came about after the person who AFDed this put it there after I reverted his unexplained redirect. Before that it hadn't been classed. Nothing out of the ordinary there however, the page has also appeared on the front page as part of DYK and since the DYK rules do not permit stubs to go on the main page, it can't be a stub. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oddjob. Certainly warrants attention, but not it's on page.DanLancaster (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Without Oddjob it's just a hat with no notability whatsover. With Oddjob it becomes notable. Where is the benefit to readers to separate? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oddjob as per other merge votes. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to let admins know, there is a separate merge discussion at the talk page going on. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of people who have indicated a merge (and that includes a large number of those that have said "keep, but merge"), the merge discussion itself seems rather redundant: A simple merge decision should be taken on the basis of the obvious consensus above. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iconic weapon of notable villian of notable franchise. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 20:49, 31 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 urethral sounding. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound (sex toy)[edit]

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

I'm unable to easily add references to this, which gives me doubt as to whether it should have an article. It seems that I'm not alone given the fact that it's been unreferenced since March 2012. I think this either needs references or it needs to be deleted for now. MZMcBride (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found urethral sounding. I guess it's safe to assume that it's used for sexual purposes. I'd settle for a redirect to urethral sounding. I don't think there's enough content for a standalone article. I'm not really sure it's a valid search term, though. Perhaps others have thoughts. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect That something can be used as a "sex toy" does not make it worthy of a separate article "as a sex toy." A long rifle shell could be used as a sex toy, but the idea of having an article on a rifle shell as a sex toy is ludicrous, as would be the hundreds of "possible" articles. (see also Slinky (sex toy) Collect (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would not like to have a rifle shell shoved up my urethra, thank you very much. That does not sound very pleasurable... Carrite (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to urethral sounding, which already covers this exact topic and is a much much older article. I don't want to merge this content do to the lack of sources. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the term is not viable for searching. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:52, 31 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 Nicki Minaj. Delete per the othe AfDs, title recreated as a semi-protected redirect to Nicki Minaj for the time being Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinkprint[edit]

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

Apparently a 2013 planned single, but no evidence of any notability (or existence) in this rather incoherent stub. The original editor dePRODded it with no explanation (along with removing several other accurate maintenance templates). PamD 08:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nicki Minaj, not because there's anything worthwhile here, but she has apparently announced this as the title of her next album, or at least it appears so from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, a fan tweeted Minaj asking if she would call her next album Pink Friday: The Pinkprint, to which she replied yes. But without a confirmed date and anything concrete that's still WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FUTURE as she's not confirmed that she's actually started the album yet nor does she have a date for release so the title could change very easily. Also even if she was calling the album Pinkprint there's no evidence to suggest there'd be a song of the same name. Pink Friday didn't have a song called "Pink Friday" and Roman Reloaded didn't have a song called "Roman Reloaded". — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:59, 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Holbert[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. I could find no significant coverage beyond his two failed runs for the US House, and even that was only token coverage for a noncompetitive seat. So, a clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree, not notable. Just a sometime candidate. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ordinary, unelected candidates need to demonstrate notability in terms of published coverage beyond the campaign itself. I see ample coverage of the campaign, but that's about it. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Served in the military, once a teacher, now a pilot. Ran twice for Congress, once as an independent, once as a Democrat. High Beam search shows only routine election coverage; could find no more information on him than is in the article. May be a patriotic, intelligent, hard working person but no different from many other such people except for Congressional runs. As for that, hundreds of people run for non-competitive seats mainly because they do not like to see people run unopposed - and their views may differ some. None of this is or shows significant coverage and none of it is enough to meet wikipedia notability criteria - unless they are to be expanded to include everyone who ever has run or will run for Congress regardless of any other notable accomplishments or traits. Donner60 (talk) 09:49, 31 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. There is a consensus below that sufficient reliable sources to support an article do not exist. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ivanovich Popov[edit]

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

Prod declined for "respectable cites", which consist of two scans of personal documents, a dissertation that makes no mention of him, and two PDFs whose host site is a dubious looking site that has nothing else on it but a DOS kernel.

According to this forum post, references to Popov did not exist until the creation of this article. I get zero hits for the Russian name in this article, and no hits on Google Books for the English name, further suggesting to me that this is a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created in 2009 as a fork for Moon landing conspiracy theories, where this person is mentioned prominently. In the Russian version of this article, created at the same time by the same user, Popov's self-published Russian-language book "Americans on the moon?" is discussed. Neither that book, nor the criticisms of it, are available in English. Scanned copies of doctorates are not WP:RS. Apart from his mentions on websites as a doubter of the American moon landing, I could find nothing. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a hoax it is very elaborate. For example, there is an ISBN registered for the book mentioned on the Russian language site. I think it is likely that a "Alexander Ivanovich Popov" exists. The relevant question here is whether he is notable (and if this can be supported by reliable sources). A superficial search of google scholar for "AI Popov"suggests he may have an H-index of 38, which is fairly high. However, their is more than one "AI Popov" as at least some of the GS results for AI Popov are authored by Anatoli Popov. Also, unless he started publishing at the age of 15 there is more than one "Alexander I Popov" [21]. I have yet to find any scholarly publications that can be attributed to the Alexander Ivanovich Popov mentioned here.T R 12:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the author of the English article, which I wrote when I was "infected" by his ideas :) No, it's not a hoax, the scanned documents are real, but the links don't work when clicked from the article, only when copied from it and pasted to the URL field of the browser. So the truthfulness of the article cannot be questioned. I agree that the real question is whether he is notable. There were thousands of physicists like him in the former USSR, but Alexander Ivanovich has gained glory not by being a former scientist but with his "moon hoax" ideas. Alas, most (if not all) of them he copied from others. So, to conclude, I wouldn't mind the deletion of the article, if the rest of the participants in this discussion come to this decision. But I would not agree if the reason for deletion would be that it is allegedly a "hoax". The reason must be no other than insufficient notability. --Лъчезар☭共产主义万岁★ 13:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. High Beam search turned up nothing on this Alexander Popov. Questia search turned up no books or articles on this Alexander Popov. 113 newspaper articles on Alexander Popov but all of the early ones were on the Olympic swimmer. Google also turns up a lot about the swimmer, a general, another scientist and an early twentieth century scientist of this name - but not this person. I think a scientist who is known only for his adherence to a conspiracy theory and his advocacy of it and who seems to have no significant coverage anywhere should not have a wikipedia article. If someone can turn up something more notable on him with reliable and verifiable sources, that would be different. If the results of my searches are all that can be found, I doubt that would be possible at this time. Donner60 (talk) 10:08, 31 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. KTC (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Stokes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:GNG - Claim to fame appears to be 6 or 7 youtube videos. Was put up for AfD 6 years ago with the result Merge & Delete PeterWesco (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (previous vote delete) ~~I don't find reliable sources discussing him to meet GNG.~~ Although I am not completely conviced by how the sources brought by Schmidt discuss the subject, they are enough to meet the general notability guideline. I'd like to see more dedicated coverage, but those available are good enough to warrant an article. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior AfD. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with all the workings of AfD, but if there was a previous discussion whose result was Merge & Delete, is another AfD really needed?... Valrith (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment it has sat for 6 years and at the time his youtube videos were just released. I think in the passage of 6 years delete is going to be the best option as he has done nothing...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and encourage improvements under WP:NRVE. A sad lack of effort when improvements are possible is less a reason to delete, than it is to let something be improved over time and through regular editing. WP:NRVE tells us notablity is based upon sources being available, and not upon their being used. The AFD in 2006 was appropriate enough as the many now-available sources did not exist at that time and six years ago the article was (then) TOO SOON. The redirect was undone by User:IronGargoyle in 2007 with the correct summary that more had become available since that 2006 AFD... but sadly, no one used the newer sources to actually expand and source the article. In looking I did find pre-2006 coverage that might have been used back then,but far more post-2006 significant coverage in such as CNN Money Stern DSL-Team Victoria Advocate Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, USA Today andmore behind paywalls in Orlando Sentinel Toronto Star Hartford Courant Chicago Tribune Bucks County Courier Times The Press of Atlantic City HAD the article been majorly improved after the redirect was undone instead of sitting forgotten, we might not be at AFD today. I think we can look to coverage from before 2006 and newer sources stretching through at least 2008, and remember that notability is not temporary. We do not expect anyone that had enough coverage in the past to stay in the headlines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Somewhat agree, but the new sources are mainly focused on the work product and not the creator. Should consolidating the other stub(like) articles into this article be the focus? Meaning Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman and God, Inc. being combine into this existing article, combining the sources, and redirecting. Essentially, from a Wikipedia perspective, are 3 thin articles better than an all encompassing article that focuses on the artist and the projects? PeterWesco (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a filmmaker's works are the recipient of enough coverage to themselves be found notable, as are Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman and God, Inc., then we have the filmmaker meeting WP:CREATIVE. The Stern (magazine) article (for one), speaks toward his work but also gives us plenty of background on the man himself to support expansion of a bio section in the article. It was the first cite I included in my recent work there. We can always discuss a merge and redirect of the project articles into the one on the filmmaker... but that does not require deletion of the article being discussed here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I did the AfD and have been swayed. As stated above, my desire would be to make this a great article. In the past 5 years there has not been much (if any) activity and I think a great Francis Stokes article with God Inc and Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman merged would be better than 3 sparse articles. This is more of a personal choice against disjointed Wikipedia:Content forking or stubs. While everyone is here, can we have a discussion on the merging and hammer something out? PeterWesco (talk) 21:13, 31 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:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Incontrovertibility of Rainbows[edit]

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

Contested prod. Could not find evidence of notability or Wikipedia:Notability (books). Appears it may be self-published. maclean (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GNG, I cannot find a single source, yet alone "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which the criteria seeks. Nimuaq (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search for the title and the year the novel is set in, yet was unable to find anything except this Wikipedia entry, the merchant's site, and various links that all come back to this AfD in some form or fashion. It's just not notable at this point in time. It doesn't help that the article contains some OR/promotional speak.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a blatant copyright violation of its only reference. Out of 5 sentences in the article, 3 are the same has this, and one is probably original research. I did a web search and aside from the one ref and the article, there was nothing in the first 100 websites. ^King Jakob _C 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability, and I couldn't find any significant coverage whatsoever. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from the fact that it seems entirely made of original research, the article's contents is only a plot summary that does not seem to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Mkdw ^talk 23:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 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. I closed this early under WP:SNOW and to respect the wishes of the subject, no need to prolong this.J04n(talk page) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott F. Wolter[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe scientist (doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC), notable for a single argument (WP:ONEEVENT). Subject has requested deletion[22] and he does not seem to be so clearly notable that this is an unreasonable request. Sources seem at best to be trivial coverage, based on the outlandishness of his claim. The sourced information could be incorporated into the article on the Kensington Runestone. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. It appears likely that the subject's books are self-published, and in any case have had no significant academic recognition - and neither is there obvious evidence that the books have had that much recognition elsewhere. A single untested and implausible claim with only minor comment in secondary sources seems a poor justification for a Wikipedia biography - though it may perhaps merit a passing mention in out article on the Kensington Runestone, if only as an illustration of how easy it is to get things wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete - Possibly consider adding a few sentences under Kensington Runestone, but I suspect this should be WP:FRINGE and should just disappear in the dust bin of history. PeterWesco (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am not sure he's notable, but he has explicitly asked for removal of the article because he doesn't like what is being said--he doesn't want his theories criticized; naturally, a NPOV article might inevitable give the impression that his theories are not mainstream, but that's irrelevant. That's not a reason for deletion--if the only articles on fringe scientists are the ones that have a POV in their favor, we will be in a very sorry state indeed. His book is in 74libraries, and tho its not a lot for conention history, its substantial for this sort of work. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any notability criteria regarding number of selfpublished books in libraries, and if there were I really don't think 74 would be enough. I also don't believe that keeping just to spite the subject is a valid rationale.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 09:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like DGG I don't like deleting an article because the subject wants to suppress all criticism of himself, but the fact is that his only notability is with regard to the Runestone, and the only sourced criticism is about that. There's no discussion of his book at all, only his technical report. All that can be merged into the Runestone article. If there are reviews of the books and sourced discussion of its claims about the Knights Templar and Columbus's secret map, then it might be worth keeping, but I doubt it even then, because this is all generic fringe history stuff. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tend to agree. The clincher for me is that the other guy, Dr Nielsen, doesn't have a wikipedia article. Deb (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that particular consideration is irrelevant, btw; the customary response is, perhaps he should. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I mean is, Nielsen clearly has some qualifications and some kind of academic history, whereas I haven't been able to track down any reference to Walter having any - but Nielsen also seems to rely for his notability on this Kensington Runestone business. Deb (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Paul--despite the normal inclination we should have not to grant such requests in any borderline situation unless there is a compelling reason (and a compelling reason can occur--I have closed one or two such as Delete when the article is manifestly unfair and no fair article could be written), there's no point keeping this just for an example. If he were borderline, yes, but it's below borderline. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG's argument above is compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject also asked via OTRS, but this page was already created. The criticism comes from a self published site, and we would have to question should it be included. If that's removed then there is not a great deal left. For those with OTRS, you can read more at OTRS ticket 2012122310004952. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've read here, getting fair treatment is impossible. You can't even spell my name right (Walter?); just delete the damn listing and be done with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookedx (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should read WP:ABIO. Mkdw ^talk 06:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wolter aka User:Hookedx does not seem notable per WP:BLP. Furthermore, a lot of the emphasis is on Wolter's book and not Wolter. As such I think Wolter's work would be an independent source for information on Kensington Runestone and not Scott F. Wolter. Mkdw ^talk 06:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His book is however self-published, so I'm not sure about that. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I excluded reliable in my wording for that possible reason. Any source would need to meet WP:Reliable. Mkdw ^talk 06:27, 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 merge to Hvaler. KTC (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hvalerdrakten[edit]

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

No interest beyond the local level. Geschichte (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hvaler. Information is better placed there. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 9 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 00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hvaler. Also, I question whether a garment in production since 1999 could be considered "the traditional costume" of the area. And the text desperately needs third-party references. 1292simon (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, this is an interesting one. Folk dress, particularly in the Northern European countries, is quite a complex subject and I can't hope to understand it fully, but I would suggest that there's a case for not deleting this. But do we merge to Hvaler or to the main page for Norwegian folk costume, which is Bunad - note that bunad also specifically mentions "modern 20th-century folk costumes". I am leaning keep, because the bunad page is a good general overview of the country's folk costume and too much focus on the individual regions, etc, would dilute that page, or at least to add a link to Bunad when merging to Hvaler. However, coverage of national costume and folk dress is generally quite patchy on Wikipedia. The reason it appears to describe something very new is because the 1999 reference is in fact to the company that currently makes the costumes (the modern industry of making traditional costumes is described at Bunad). I will take a look at the article and see if I can improve it. Mabalu (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, that's annoying. www.bunadraadet.no/ (the Norwegian Council of Folk Costume site) is completely gone, kaput, down. I found a link to an e-book on folk costume but the downloadable PDF was hosted by - bunadreet.no. Emphasis on the "No" there. However, looking at general Norwegian folk costume sites, I can see that there is a strong bunad culture, with folk costumes still being designed today (but requiring approval of the Council to pass.) I've moved the company plug to the bottom, and considering the general content for Norwegian folk dress online - lots of sites, articles, essays, etc, and obviously something that is extremely meaningful to Norwegian identity - I hesitate to recommend anything without input from Norwegian users. I've made a couple copy edits to dilute the company plug. Mabalu (talk) 11:22, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but not opposed to Keep if there's enough material. A search reveals that Hvalerdrakten is real enough, and there seems to be a desire to renew the trad. dress from time to time, maybe to keep the tradition alive. Therefore it's possible enough exists for an article. Meanwhile a section in Hvaler (or Bunad) would seem the best solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient cultural significance. (though a mergewould be acceptable also) DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 31 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image News FM (Nepal)[edit]

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

Unsourced and no indication of notability per WP:BROADCAST. - Mr X 02:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now - Although it's more likely sources are going to be Nepali, I haven't found any reliable English sources aside from useless streaming services. This is a weak delete because I'm not capable to search for Nepali sources. However, I should note that radio stations rarely receive any significant attention especially history-wise. I'm not an expert with Nepali culture but this lack of attention probably applies to Nepal as well. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 4 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, —Theo polisme 07:59, 9 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!} 03:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage of notable achievements. 1292simon (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally notable but my Google-fu is failing me and my Nepali is non-existent. - Dravecky (talk) 06:28, 21 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 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. To demonstrate notability, there require reliable sources that discuss the instrument itself. The fact that the instrument have been used by someone notable is not sufficient. KTC (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BanSitar[edit]

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

The sources for this novelty instrument are not substantive coverage in independent third party sources. Hekerui (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Weak delete - Have not found reliable sources that cover this topic. While it appears (per the Wikipedia article) that BBC Radio aired a piece that included the instrument being played ("BBC Radio 3, In Tune Programme". (links to an unavailable episode, unfortunately), the only additional information found in source searches is this primary source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Like Northamerica1000, I found the same sources and came to the same conclusions. There is stuff out there, but it seems to all be in unreliable sources or very brief passing mentions, unfortunately. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 20 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - By way of example, on the album Weave & Spin, Rowan Rheingans plays the BanSitar as a part of the group Lady Maisery on the track Nottamun Fair (see play window for Nottamun Fair here "Lady Maisery". in order to play the recording). Lady Maisery were nominated for the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards (Horizon Award, "BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards".). Perhaps Lady Maisery might be considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article?

Although the actual BBC recordings appear not to be currently available, example playings are listed by the BBC and include the BBC Radio 3 "In Tune" programme, as cited above, and also "BBC Radio 3, Late Junction"..

Even if the BanSitar were a "novelty" instrument as mentioned above, I do not believe this would lessen the case for the article; Wikipedia contains many articles for novelty instruments. However it appears to be a somewhat novel, turn-of-the-century instrument.

Having come across the instrument in performance, I was surprised Wikipedia had no article for it, so I created one. The article is currently very much a stub. A reliable reference to the instrument's construction would be useful. Clearly the BanSitar exists, is being played, recorded and the recordings played on the BBC. I think Wikipedia would be the poorer without an article for it. G J Coyne (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that although this article needs improvement with further references to reliable sources, that it is encyclopedic and a useful and improvable addition to Wikipedia. G J Coyne (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

I perform, compose and record with the BanSitar with my groups The Field and Dragon. It is integral in my daily musical life. A good friend of mine, Cece Giannotti is about to receive his BanSitar from Helmut. Cece is one of Barcelona's prominent composers and performers and I know he will be using the BanSitar live and on recording as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterReid (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment CarterReid. I don't think anyone is questioning that the BanSitar exists or that it is being played or recorded. As I understand it, the question raised is whether the content of the article is verifiable against reliable sources. An independent review of the instrument from a reliable source would be useful, perhaps one which gave detail of it's construction? Such a sources may already exist and if not, I'm sure they will exist soon. I did see some discussion on a forum (Australian?) of a catalogue of a range of instruments including the BanSitar, but I have lost that source. Might you know of reliable sources which we might cite? G J Coyne (talk) 22:09, 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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agora cyber charter school[edit]

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

No indication this school is notable Travelbird (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple Google News and Google News Archive search would have squelched the creation of this AfD. I'd cite WP:BEFORE but you've been around long enough that this should have been obvious. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did check those before, however to be honest I still don't quite understand what this "K12 Inc. / Agora Cyber Charter School" actually does. Is it a fully fledged online school (which seems a bit strange for a supposedly K-12 school - how to you teach Kindergarden over the internet ?? . or is it simply and online learning website which offers individual courses beyond what a normal school offers? Since the article does not offer any refs of its own to illustrate which is the case, I still feel that an AfD (which should be viewed as a discussion, not necessarily a request for deletion btw) is in order. I certainly have no objections to keeping this if it can indeed be shown that it is inherently notable. 18:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools are generally considered to be notable if there is verifiable information provided. This article is about a elementary and high school, and the latter are primary notable. I found sources from Philadelphia Inquirer, Navy Times, Reading Eagle, Philadelphia Daily News, and the Philadelphia Public School Notebook at Google News. I also ran across a Newswire source at Google. While the article itself may not be in the best shape, the subject is certainly notable and verified. See WP:BEFORE. TBr and ley 18:36, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too little information was provided in the article submitted to know about the school, so I added the basic information and links to the article to indicate its nature. All genuine high schools that have a real existence are notable. I do not consider this a genuine high school, as I will explain. I do not think either the keep or delete !votes have actually examined the nature of this institution; I would myself have !voted keep had I not looked behind the article -- I wonder why such a subminimal article was submitted; presumably it was a naïve student not realizing the nature of an encyclopedia.

This is not a genuine school in the usual sense. It is a state component of a nationwide program provided by K12 (company), a privately held perofit-making education service company. This is merely the branch of it operating nominally from a particular Pennsylvania school district to provide the standard Pennsylvania curriculum to students in that region. It has no true individual existence, any more that a regional office of any other nationwide company. This is just the local unit of a private company, of no more individual importance or individuality than the local branch of a supermarket. The only thing that can be said in its favor is that it is not entirely a virtual school, but has a classroom for optional supplemental instruction. But so does a supermarket chain have a local physical presence, but that doesn't make it more significant than the local facilities for an online food ordering service. The elaborate website is the same one as for all their schools, with the local information added--just like a supermarket chain. There is and should be an article on the company. The list of their schools belongs not even there, but on their own web page, just as for a supermarket chain. Adding articles on their individual facilities is just providing them advertising--not that the article as submitted was very effective at that.

We're not a web directory. Some think that ordinary high schools are stretching the limits a little here, but most of them do have individual notability & it isn't worth sorting out the ones that don't. I have never supported it for other local institutions, even those I like the most, such as libraries, let alone those that are merely necessary, such a fire departments and sewage disposal districts and electric substations and supermarkets; the presumption is that they are not notable, and I've always asked for very clearly substantial sources not based on press releases or trivial event reports for these; it's worth sorting in the few that are actually notable. The fact that this one has the surface appearance and public funding of a genuine K-12 school is an interesting feature of 21st century American public education, but it is appropriately explained in the main article on the company. DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per above. This incorrectly capitalized and poorly punctuated Article has too few sources and too little information to inform anyone looking it up of anything new to them about the school. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:41, 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. Not an easy one, right on the border numerically, but the concerns about out-of-universe sourcing being unavailable were never really answered or refuted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indiana Jones artifacts[edit]

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

This is very interesting as trivia, extremely interesting in fact, but in the end it is just trivia and fancruft with no real sourcing, and thus has no place on Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see eight sources listed, so it is not like there is nothing. The most this list calls for is a request for more sources. This is of interest to numerous readers and deletion argument that uses terms like "fancruft" is unhelpful, in my view. Jus da fax 21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These artifacts are the central components of the plots. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If i thought those sources were strong enough, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of putting the article up. The sourcing is extremely weak. As for it being fancruft, I really don't know what else to call it. Outside of the Indiana Jones fans, I seriously doubt if anyone would care about any of the items on the list, in fact the image is that of an Indian Jones cosplay event. How much more "fancruft" can you get? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While some of these are based on real-world objects, like the Ark, the list is presented in-universe, eg a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. There is one out-of-universe source regarding the Ark, but that feels like the only concession to make this list appropriate. As such, this is mostly a fan listing that can go on some wiki but not appropriate here. (The individual works do talk about it, however.) --MASEM (t) 17:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Masem, this violates WP:NOTPLOT, and there are more appropriate places to discuss the artifacts. Claritas § 23:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above violation of WP:NOTPLOT. This would be more appropriate for an Indiana Jones Wiki. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:33, 20 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete statements like "these are central to the plot" need to be cited to reliable third party sources. Since there are no such sources to WP:verify notability, we're left with only editor opinion about whether this warrants an article, which isn't how things are done on Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an important theme/plot element of the Indiana Jones franchise - the parent article is already at 31 kb of prose and could be longer with more material. Hence this would be better in daughter article due to length concerns of parent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber. Fictional franchise centered around artifacts, huge blockbusters (well, except for #4), and there's somehow a difficulty demonstrating that such a spinout has sufficient independent notability? I think not. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sue Rangell and Masem. I agree with Holyfield1998, this would only be appropriate for an Indiana Jones Wiki. Jucchan (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber. This is a useful list, giving that many of the artifacts have independent notability. St Anselm (talk) 22:54, 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 keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.C. (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band, has no reason to suggest notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AfD. Online coverage seems rather minimal (e.g., [23][24][25]), but what about the apparent significant coverage in print sources (Melody Maker, NME, Q magazine, Select, The Wire) identified during the previous discussion? I agree that this is not a reliable source, but the information contained in these works can be verified. Gong show 05:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with Gongshow. This is a band from the past century, and thus I don't expect a lot of online coverage, specially since they are not releasing new music. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the previous AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violent and Lazy[edit]

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

Non-notable no reason to suggest notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Easy (Grinspoon album), the song's parent album, as a plausible search term and as WP:NSONGS suggests. Gong show 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, barring someone adding specific noteworthiness for this single in particular - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charted on ARIA Alternative Singles Chart at No. 15. Info now in article + a Pandora ref. Pandora archives only go back to January 2001, so earlier charting into ARIA Singles Top 100 is not available on-line.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSONGS Covered by songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:11, 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 keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in birding and ornithology[edit]

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

Tried to delete by Prod long time ago, didn't succeed. Anyways incomplete article with basically nothing, there is no use for this article. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 04:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Part of an extensive series. See Category:Years in birding and ornithology. It needs expanding. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alan Liefting. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the comments above that this is a Wiki, and citing an article as incomplete as grounds for deletion should be an argument to avoid. 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
'Comment, I'm fine with keeping as it seems there is a long and ok series of these. But this one need serious cleanup. - Nabla (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it needs work. Andrew (talk) 03:10, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert William John Shannon[edit]

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

A Google search on Shannon returns nothing but Wikipedia articles. Not notable. —Andrew_stalk 03:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Andrew_stalk 03:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User has created an article about himself, Clear COI! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an inventor, and I have referred to the inventions that have been filed. You won't see them in a general internet search, since they are protected intellectual property. They are publicly viewable and the various patent and trademark office databases. If this reads like a biography, and I see that under the wikipedia policies that this is frowned upon. Then by all means delete it. I'll create a new one that conforms.Joshannon (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the style of writing that's the problem, it's the fact that the subject fails notability criteria. Furthermore, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. —Andrew_stalk 08:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail notability. No indication that any of these patents is especially important - SimonLyall (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Schwede 66 05:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Can't find anything that brings it over the notability threshold.NealeFamily (talk) 09:32, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinhas Kopel[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He has an entry in Tidhar's Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel, for whatever that's worth. (Credit: Hebrew Wikipedia) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 14:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: He was the Inspector General (a.k.a. Commissioner) of the Israel Police, which, in Israel, is the highest-ranking police officer; he held that position for about eight years. Probably notable, though the encyclopedia entry I linked (admittedly written shortly after his appointment) does not make it seem so. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being the highest-ranking police officer is in itself notable enough for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The highest ranking police officer in a country of this size and geopolitical importance is obviously a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, per the basic common sense that seems to be lacking in this nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense tells us incorrectly that the sun rises in the east, that cycle helmets make cycling safe, and that water with a dirty colour is unsafe. Researching the topic, rather than using common sense, tells me that there is nothing to suggest that the topic meets WP:BIO, especially with 391 ghits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what sort of sense, common or otherwise, tells you that Google hits in the Latin alphabet are a valid metric for measuring the notability of someone who retired nearly twenty years before the World Wide Web was invented and who is from a country whose national language is written in a different script? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we establish notability in the English language Wikipedia when there is next to no English language refs? Anyway, if he was truly notable there would be a far greater number of English lang refs. Does that sound sensible? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Comment: For a somewhat analogous precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaudhry Yaqoob. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth coverage in news articles, found with jpress.org.il (in reverse order, as I filter out the significant mentions from 200-odd results):

As president of the football association: Davar, October 2, 1973 (p. 10) "קופל יתפטר אם "מודיעין אזרחי" יציע עצמו למכרז".
As a candidate for the mayoralty of Ramat Gan: Davar, February 7, 1973 (p. 3) "קופל עשוי "לרוץ" לראשות רמת גן".
As ex-commissioner (an interview): Davar, September 15, 1972 (pp. 13–14) "פנחס קופל האזרח על המשטרה, תדמיתה וצרכיה".
(As head of the "Kopel Commission" (not quite as in-depth): Davar, September 20, 1972 (p. 3) "עדים ראשונים הופיעו לפני ועדת קופל".)
As outgoing commissioner: Davar, July 17, 1972 (p. 7) "עם פרישתו של קופל".
(Skipping many mentions in his eight years of being commissioner—it is much to difficult to select the significant mentions, but I noticed quite a few articles where a quote from Kopel is part of the headline.)
As incoming commissioner:
1. Maariv (newspaper), May 25, 1964 (p. 2) "מהגה האוטובוס - לצמרת המשטרה"—includes much biographical information.
2. Davar, June 29, 1964 (p. 3) "זכרונותיו של מפקד "הכומתות הירוקות""—includes much biographical information.
3. Davar, June 1, 1964 (pp. 1, 2) (two articles).
(Earlier mentions of Kopel are not particularly significant; there are passing mentions of him as an officer of the Israel Border Police.)

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage (continued, adding search results skipped previously due to OCR idiosyncrasies):

On his appointment to the office of commissioner-general: Davar, May 25, 1964 (pp. 1–2) "ניצב פ. קופל מונה מפכ"ל".
On his ascent to office: Maariv, June 3, 1964 (p. 3) "היום הראשון של המפכ"ל החדש".
On his appointment to the presidency of the football association: Davar, October 23, 1972 (p. 12) "קופל: מגמתי להפוך את הכדורגל לענף ספורט שאפשר להתגאות בו".

I think that's enough, no? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite enough sources. Anyone in this office is notable, and there is enough evidence under GNG in any case. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've finished retranslating it now; the indication of notability is a lot clearer now. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:48, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hateley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, no evidence he ever played for Crystal Palace, every other team he played for is semi-professional no reliable sources Delete Secret ^account 02:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to Soccerbase, he never played a first team match for Palace - and the article is written in a heavily promotional manner (e.g., that modelling section) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom as this individual never played at a notable level, thus failing the guidelines mentioned above. C 679 09:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Ari[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally on the grounds that the article had been PROD'ed before. Original PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Delete both. They fail WP:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:26, 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 merge to Avaya . MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Government Solutions[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge notable US Government contractor. Needs expansion or merge with Avaya. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, not independently notable. --Nounique names 22:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highbeam shows ample results for them. [26] Google news probably has some results too. Not sure if any of it has much detail about them, or just their activities, signing a deal with the Coast Guard, etc. Don't care one way or the other myself. Dream Focus 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is this any more notable than any other government contractor? Did "Avaya Government Solutions" do something special? What was the incident? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep utterly absurd deletion for major branch ($400,000,000 revenue) of very important and famous company. Most large commercial enterprises are too large to cover in one article; this is appropriate use of summary style. It's true this article does not well explain the notability to a reader who might be unfamiliar with the commercial IT world, but the cure for that is expansion--and probably separate articles for the major product groups. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability guideline states notability exists at a certain dollar value? Further, if this is an example of summary style, it is a terribly poor one. Summary style requires that each article must be able to stand as a self contained unit. References have not been provided to illustrate such in this instance. --Nounique names 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common outcomes and common sense. Dream Focus 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG's reasoning. I didn't notice this in the article before. "Revenue $400 million US$ (2007)". Yep, a company is notable based on the big money it makes. Dream Focus 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 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, Courcelles 01:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avaya has been given a good deal of free advertising courtesy of Wikipedia! We need to to take a firmer stance with all of these company articles before Wikipedia becomes a business directory with a few encyclopedia articles. We should be using WP:OTHERSTUFF to set a level playing field otherwise Wikipedia would give one company a commercial advantage over others. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or a reluctant partial merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do realize that Avaya isn't behind these articles and really doesn't need "advertising on wikipedia". They have over $5 billion in world wide revenue. Mike (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avaya which is where this material belongs. A recent problem on Wikipedia has been people thinking a lack of notability leads to deletion. It does not. A lack of notability means "do not have a separate article". WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD both lead us to prefer outcomes such as "merge" or "redirect" over deletion. I've noticed even experienced administrators failing to grok this recently ([27]), which is annoying. Please would the closer read the "delete" !votes above as "merge" or "redirect" in accordance with policy.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avaya. I actually had this on my list of content to integrate into the Avaya article for some time... if I jumped the gun by adding it before this AfD was closed, please revert with my apologies. Pjhansen (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Avaya. And castrate the spammers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Red Pen of Doom, what spammers? Lets please stop this witch hunt which is giving Wikipedia a black eye. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh ferchrisake, what " is giving Wikipedia a black eye" is that we are allowing the servers supported by donations from people wishing to support a free encyclopedia to instead be highjacked to host free corporate advertisements on the highest ranking search engine domain. THATs the real issue and if it takes a witchhunt to clean out such crap, so be it and sign me up for a pitchfork and torch! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rollback To maintain history, how about divorcing the Nortel part from the Avaya part by rolling back this article to this version, giving it its original name Nortel Government Solutions and creating a new article for Avaya Government Solutions? This way history will be preserved and will enable someone to one day create a third article called Performance Engineering Corporation (PEC) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Masters in Human Rights and Democratisation[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article provides no secondary sources, and initial searches of Google, G Books, G News, and G Scholar showed none. Khazar2 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 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 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable WP:SPAM. 1292simon (talk) 02:17, 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:01, 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, Courcelles 01:35, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rancore[edit]

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

Previously tagged for A7 speedy but it was declined - the article has not improved much since then. This is a poorly-sourced article about an Italian rapper who appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 13:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found these at MTV Italy: [28], [29]. Not much from any other source, though. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 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 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If the unreferenced claims are true, he is notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:46, 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep He released in october 2012 another album with Dj Myke. I added some references about this latest work, an interview by La Stampa and a article of MTV --Alfio66 (talk) 20:11, 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, Courcelles 01:34, 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. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior (United States)[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article seems to be a laundry list of programming on one Disney Channel. Although programming evolves, the vast majority of Disney channels around the world carry the basically same programming in various configurations, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was the one who declined the PROD, but simply so that this could be discussed. I for one have no stake in this article and have actually found it quite annoying, if only because it seems to be subject to vandalizing every other day. However, there is a long history of discussions of similar pages in AfD, many of which have been nominated before under WP:NOT or WP:DIRECTORY. A precedent has developed over the years that in many cases has kept these pages. The most relevant discussions include: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_programs_broadcast_by_networks and this deletion review. In the end, this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis (not a small number of similar AfDs have resulted in deletion). Factors such as having RS and proper organization also are crucial. But for the sake of consistency, reference to precedent is essential. Michitaro (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 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!} 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on precedent that these are worth keeping, especially as this is a fairly notable channel. It could well be reformatted to remove any directory concerns, but if it stays, it absolutely must be semi-protected against vandalism, based on the history of the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A commonly seen list of past and present television programs carried by a notable television network in the United States. While the list itself may not be in the best shape, it is certainly therefore non-notable and valid. This argument is simlar to what of happen for those television schedules, which all closed as speedy keep. Vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion. TBr and ley 17:33, 20 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, Courcelles 01:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Channel itself is pretty notable JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for 2 reasons:

1. for the same reasons as above

2. I think whom ever nominated this page for deletion just doesn't like Disney Jr. or Disney in general (and I don't blame him/her) or the Article itself you can't delete an article from Wikipedia just because you don't like it see: WP:IDONTLIKEIT Digifan23 (talk) 10:38, 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 List of The Transformers characters. Rather than commenting, I have taken the liberty of performing the merge myself. Google News and Books provided nothing useful and the only places with sufficient information would be either forums or Transformers Wiki (both are, however, insufficient for Wikipedia as they are in-world). However, I think an entry can be created at the list using the current information. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Widow[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Claritas § 17:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To List of The Transformers characters. Not notable enough for a standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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!} 05:35, 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, Courcelles 01:30, 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 List of The Transformers characters. Content can be merged individually — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astroscope[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Claritas § 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To List of The Transformers characters. Not notable enough for a standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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!} 05:36, 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, Courcelles 01:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect as per above; plausible search term. I'm not seeing evidence that this character meets WP:GNG or otherwise warrants an individual article. Gong show 18:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect: no reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to character list. No reason exists to delete before merging, since the only issue is notability, and the history should be preserved in the off chance someone wants to try and restart a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 31 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-organic material[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. I was unable to find any independent reliable sources which describe techno-organic material in fiction via GoogleBooks/Scholar/search. Claritas § 17:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the Marvel Universe... Nope. There are articles about fictitious materials and other sci-fi related stuff, maybe this fits in one of those. And gods, it's completely unsourced so it's nothing more than WP:OR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 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!} 05:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick search for sources when this first came up. I didn't find anything describing this as a coherent concept, either. The WWW page by Soleil Lapierre, hyperlinked-to by the article, contains various "it is not known" and "presumably"s, indicating that there isn't really anything even in the underlying fiction describing this, before going off to discuss transformers technology instead. Uncle G (talk) 06:56, 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, Courcelles 01:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the above, as original... er, potential future research. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third party sources that sigifniciantly cover this topic. If we can't WP:verify notability of the concept, we typically delete it. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing notability and even verifiability. Cavarrone (talk) 06:17, 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. Consensus is that there are not sufficient external sources to establish notability at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Accent Training Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Accent Training Inc featured in Business Journal. http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2005/07/11/focus1.html --Editorkabaap (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Both Dell and IBM in Latin America have had a lot of success with training their work forces in American customs and accent using the American Accent Training Online Accent Program." http://accentonaccent.us/callcentersworldwide/latinamericancenters.html --Editorkabaap (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AAT web based trainings have been conducted in principal call center countries to date including: India, Pakistan, Philippines, Panama (Projected this year: Singapore, Hong Kong, Guam, Kuala Lumpur) http://www.americanaccent.com/demo5_2.html --Editorkabaap (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mere presence of information on the internet is not a reason for having a Wikipedia article about the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book American Accent Training and the company American Accent Training, Inc. are the pioneers in american accent training worldwide and their services are used by call centers across the world majorly in USA, and call center industry of India. --Editorkabaap (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A previous version at American Accent Training, Inc. as been deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article probably would have been speedily deleted as well, had the author not removed the speedy deletion tag. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be non-notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 20 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, Courcelles 01:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No valid arguments for deleting the article found. A previous version American Accent Training, Inc. got deleted because no discussion was followed and no arguments were provided to save it since American Accent Training Inc was created and it was necessary to delete the previous version.--Editorkabaap (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editorkabaap, the valid reason for deletion that has been provided is that the company fails to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please see WP:COMPANY for details. Unless you can show that American Accent Training satisfies those criteria, the article is going to be deleted. Keep in mind that reliable sources must be independent of the company, so American Accent Training's website is not a valid source for establishing the company's notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was not able to find any relevant coverage - this is the closest I could dig up, and even that's a far cry from what we need. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:40, 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 redirect to List of James Bond villains#Quantum. Redirected as plausible search term; deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum (James Bond)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Quantum (James Bond)

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

There is nothing cited/notable in this article that isn't already covered in the relevant film articles. A redirect isn't really appropriate since the content is spread out over different film articles; not many articles link here so I'm proposing deletion as the most appropriate course of action. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group, collectively, is the antagonist for two Bond films, no different from SPECTRE for some of the others. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except SPECTRE was in four Fleming novels, (plus those of Gardner and Benson) and in seven Bond films. It also had a fairly important mention in the Thunderball plagiarism case. Aside from that SPECTRE appears in a large number of academic works that look into Bond, something that Quantum fails to do, with their references being largely in-universe. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (we can put a note on a disambig). Where's the reliable, significant coverage in primary sources? "I think it's important" is no answer. Neutrality^talk 07:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was just my way of saying it meets WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete due to lack of real-world notability but recommend retaining the entry at Quantum (disambiguation), linking to either film. A search engine test shows that this organization does not have notoriety (unlike SPECTRE) to warrant a stand-alone article. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly WP:INUNIVERSE. The INUNIVERSE detail is supposed to support the real world commentary—of which there is none—and doesn't merit inclusion on its own terms. It is still a valid search term though, so I recommend redirecting to List of James Bond villains#Quantum. Betty Logan (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SchroCat and Betty Logan. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:06, 20 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, Courcelles 01:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to establish the notability of this as per the WP:GNG. Need reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:25, 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 keep. No !votes for deletion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Base[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional spaceship. Claritas § 12:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSame reason as last nomination, with emphasis on at least 3 of the 4 sources being secondary, 3rd party. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 19:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable outside of the fanbase - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment General WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of reply. If it is notable anywhere, and multiple secondarily sourced, your remarks are against WP:N —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck opinion, to Weak Keep Article just needs more sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 27 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, Courcelles 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There are several books listed in the article, which presumably cover the subject. Assuming that they do, this should be kept. I say weak keep because I have not read those sources and do not know what they actually contain. I will say that, unlike all the other Gundam articles being nominated for deletion recently, this one seems like it should be notable, as it is the main ship used by the protagonists in the iconic first Gundam series. Calathan (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator fails to explain how multiple references for article do not meet our GNG, he simply asserts it without evidence. While I don't read Japanese, I would expect that someone so confidently nominating a fictionaly element with a foreign-language origin would be able to give a detailed appraisal of the sources, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 31 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 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross platform promotion[edit]

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

Article written by an editor with a single purpose to promote the Grattons and their work. This article is basically an advertisement for their book, which introduces the idea of 'cross platform promotion' (in fact this article is probably a good example of the self-promotion strategy they advocate). Article is sourced to the Grattons or their publisher, apart from a local newspaper article. I can't see anything else online that is not a social media source or linked to the Grattons. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism without significant coverage in independent sources. The local newspaper doesn't mention CPP at all; all the other sources are directly associated with the Grattons. Huon (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 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, Courcelles 01:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just an attempt to get multiple articles on the same non-notable subject. That is a characteristic sign of promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 31 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 no consensus. Three relistings later, there's no consensus here, and doesn't look likely to develop one by prolonging this indefinitely. Another AFD in a couple months would be well in order, though. Courcelles 03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Girl[edit]

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

This topic about an indie rock band from San Jose, California appears to fail WP:GNG. Additionally, while the topic may just meet point #5 of WP:BAND (because the group released a CD and a 7" on Asian Man Records), this may not be enough to confer overall notability for this band. There's this one local source in the article, but Wikipedia articles typically require coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The other two sources in the article are dead links from what appears to be an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While I agree with the nominator about the sources described, I feel that this rises to the role of the second source GNG requires. I think there's some coverage here as well, but it's behind a paywall. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:58, 4 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 01:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the band was really important it would have gotten more press coverage. I don't think the mere fact that 4 or 5 people get together and release a couple of CD's should mean they need to be covered by an encyclopedia article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:17, 10 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 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, Courcelles 01:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I can only find one more local source but it doesn't meet WP:RS. "Reunion" 7" -which is no longer available acc. to [30]- is actually two singles, not a full album, and one of the singles (Reunion) is already included on their one and only album CD ([31]), so I don't think it meets the 5th criteria of WP:BAND. Nimuaq (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to the coverage identified above by j⚛e decker, there's a full article about the band in the San Francisco Chronicle which I added just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wetness Indicator[edit]

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

Article moved to Wetness indicator. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable product feature. Article has no references. The only news item found was an article about the wetness indicator on Justin Bieber's Pamper's. - Mr X 03:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that there are no other sources on this. Wetness indicators are now featured in most common brands of disposable diapers - trust me, it's a major part of my day-to-day life... הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~: To Diaper. Actually, there is already a well-referenced reference (sorry) to wetness indicators in the Diaper article: Diaper#Disposable diapers, but this article is a little more detailed. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: !vote changed per Altered Walter's reasoning (below) that a merge is impossible. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 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 01:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I was going to say "merge to Training pants#Wetness indicator", but looked again at the sources I found in GBooks and GScholar, which describe its use in diapers as well as in training pants. Since it can't be merged to one of the two, it's better to have a single article which can be linked to from both. It should be moved to Wetness indicator though, per WP:CAPS. I'll try to improve the references later today when I get time. Altered Walter (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moved to Wetness indicator. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:56, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 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, Courcelles 01:17, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge and Islam[edit]

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

This article is entirely WP:Primary sources and apologetics. It does not address the issue neutrally, and does not provide a single WP:Independent source or example of external scholarship. It frequently dives into POV, choosing what is the "correct" way to interpret the Quran, etc. This article has literally no encyclopedic content, and I can't see any improvement short of a complete wipe and re-write from scratch. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - a tough one. I can appreciate the want for an article like this covering Islamic education (which exists as a disambig) or History of Islamic education (which does not exist) but the article in question looks like personal interpretation of primary sources - fairly straight up-and-down WP:OR. I can see the value in some of the information being included somewhere but the current presentation is fairly unencyclopaedic. Stalwart111 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: This Teahouse discussion relates to this article for deletion discussion. Mono 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this notification bigger as I think it gives some important background to this discussion - hope you don't mind. Stalwart111 00:26, 20 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, Courcelles 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - the article relies exclusively on primary sources and doesn't offer any unique content that cannot be situated elsewhere. I assumed, by the title that the article would have been referring to the acquisition of knowledge via formal or other education. The article is simply one person's interpretation of what the Qu'ran says about knowledge. Very few reasons to keep it as is! EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete that all the citations but one are from the Qu'ran shows this for the personal essay that it is. Mangoe (talk) 01:52, 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. Courcelles 03:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Diverging C Curve[edit]

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

A phony article - the "economist" who created this theory is a secondary school student, and there are no references to back up the notability of this "theory." Completely fails WP:GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, made up, with no references external to Wikipedia and mirrors. However, the underlying concept seems to exist, as Amazon.com did this for the first several years. But I have no idea of the proper name for the concept. Chris857 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete A made-up name for a well-known marketing tactic. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond S. and Dorothy N. Moore Foundation[edit]

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

Although I'm a bit uncertain about this article, I can't really find a lot of good sources when checking for hits on the web or in places such as Google Books. Most of the things I find are directories and various sites and books that are based on Wikipedia articles, such as [32]. Nothing I've found so far really helps to establish any notability, so it appears to be a non-notable organization.

Please note that before nominating this article, it (and others) were listed for a month over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling in order to get more feedback, but as the wikiproject appears to be completely dead no feedback was received. Bjelleklang - talk 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:07, 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, Courcelles 01:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched at Google News, Scholar and Books and found nothing that would be appropriate, however, after another search at Google Books, I found this acknowledgement, this (scroll to "Homeschool: an American history - Page 129") and this (the book uses them as a reference). The second page provided two results (the first one appears to be promotional and the second one isn't helpful either). I should note that while I was searching with Google Books and Scholar, I found work by Raymond and Dorothy Moore themselves but nothing related to the foundation. Without any third-party sources, this article would simply read like an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, and the article seems to be highly promotional "In 2002, the Moore Foundation mourned the passing of Dorothy Moore, who helped to pioneer the concept of homeschooling."--that must be a copyvio from somewhere. . There might possibly be some notability for an article on Raymond Moore, if anyone cares to write one. Bu — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'mreluctant to close as keep on the available evidence, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion after several relistings DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aden Services[edit]

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

Article is about a food services complany from China. Notability anyone?–BuickCentury Driver 06:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scale of the company is notable, as is the number and type of war-zone and emerging-market locations where it operates. In business 13+ years, 13000 employees, $60 million in sales, how can it not be notable? Not much English-language coverage, but covered in languages of countries where it operates, in trade directories, and also in the top French newspaper even though not France-based (http://www.lefigaro.fr/lefigaromagazine/2010/02/13/01006-20100213ARTFIG00085--joachim-p-oy-lo-39-ans-president-et-fondateur-d-aden-services-.php) and in two highly reputable business magazines (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/joachim-poylo-sert-ses-repas-au-bout-du-monde.N63314 and http://lentreprise.lexpress.fr/implantation-a-l-etranger/ils-font-du-business-en-chine-six-exemples-de-reussite_23361.html). Continues to receive investments (http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2011/LesEchos/21000-54-ECH.htm). Meets WP:CORPDEPTH easily. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:13, 5 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 13000 employees seems big enough to be notable. But current article does not establish notability (eg a news story because they did X, or they are the Yth biggest food services company in the world) 1292simon (talk) 01:59, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the sources are from French newspapers since the company's founder is a French entrepreneur and they are mainly reporting the success story of the founder rather than the significance of the company, so much that I'm convinced that he alone meets the WP:GNG criteria but I'm still not sure about the company itself. Nimuaq (talk) 18:09, 23 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, Courcelles 00:59, 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 no consensus. KTC (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atazhuko Adil-Giray[edit]

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

Bio with no attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The standard way to provide evidence of notability is to cite sources, and this has been done, so the nomination statement is obviously erroneous. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 29 November 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, —Theo polisme 23:01, 3 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 01:10, 10 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, Courcelles 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:23, 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) 00:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: From what I gather from English-language sources, it is his brother, Ismail Bey Atazhukin, who is notable, not him, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a literal translation of the Russian article, done by the author of the Russian article. I do not have access to the book which is cited, but if the statement of the article is correct, the person is notable as a leader of the anti-colonial movement. My concern is, however, that the Russian article looks like being copypasted from the book without changes and thus may infringe copyright.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced. Plausibly described as a notable historical figure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 31 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 no consensus. as per no prejudice against speedy renomination and also, relisting it will be nothing as there are no participants in the past 3 relistings. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeongi–Gongju[edit]

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

Yeongi–Gongju is non-existent area. It says just adjacent places Yeongi County & Gongju. See [33]. Yeongi-Gongju and Gongju-Nonsan (Gongju & Nonsan) are temporarily stated as candidates, and candidate Yeongi-Gongju now becomes Sejong. If it is keeping, we should make meaningless articles for all adjacent area. Sawol (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm looking at the link you provided, and it says "The government selected Yeongi-Gongju yesterday as the most favorable locale to replace Seoul as the nation's administrative capital." I do not think the government selected a non-existent area as the most favorable location. The NYT calls it a city now: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EEDD1139F937A1575AC0A9629C8B63 -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeongi is existent area. Gongju is existent area. Yeongi–Gongju means the candidate through Yeongi & Gongju, is a temporary name for several years. Now the candidate is Sejong which consists of whole of Yeongi and a part of Gongju. If this is kept, What is included in this article? Sawol (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate area is commonly referred to as an entity as Yeongi–Gongju in notable, verifiable, reliable sources. The article includes what the article includes now, and/or whatever improvements editors wish to make to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I suggest a redirect to Sejong City. Sawol (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 4 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 01:11, 10 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, Courcelles 01:19, 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) 00:37, 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 merge to Marcella Detroit. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Levy Band[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are either about Marcella Detroit or Carlos Guitaros and not about the band. Last.fm ref added when a prod was removed with the rationale that this article is required for a discography of Detroit - this is clearly not the case. noq (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The album and EP do not belong in Marcella Detroit discography, which is why the page is needed for a complete discography. You have provided no reason as to why that is not the case.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then merge and redirect to Marcella Detroit, while merging the detailed discography information to Marcella Detroit discography. This is substantial content about the activities of a notable artist, so deletion would not be the right result, but unless or until there is more that's clearly about the group rather than about Marcy, I think this belongs in the articles about her. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marcella Detroit/Marcella Detroit discography per Arxiloxos. Best covered in those articles, but there is no case for outright deletion. --Michig (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 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 speedy delete. Closing as Speedy Delete G11; the contents are essentially an advertisement for the school. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecole Supérieure Robert de Sorbon[edit]

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

Unnotable alleged diploma mill. Only two sources in the article 1) It's website which claims its not a diploma mill and 2) a French search engine with a "verification needed" tag. If you go to the "school's" webpage and click "apply" you can use paypal to "pay the €500 Euros for Tuition and Diploma fees." Tried finding sources, but could only locate forums that say its a diploma mill. SalHamton (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 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 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of whether it's a diploma mill or not, they haven't done anything notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:49, 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, Courcelles 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also delete the several redirects. SalHamton (talk) 16:13, 20 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) 00:32, 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. clear consensus after several relistings DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Ganaway[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NBOX. ...William 14:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:08, 3 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 01:14, 10 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 10. Snotbot t • c » 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOX. 1292simon (talk) 01:25, 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, Courcelles 01:03, 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) 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NBOX. Grande (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX at this time. Gong show 18:51, 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.