< 24 December	26 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Redirected as suggested. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attapeu Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable stadium and there is no content (an infobox alone should not count as content). I tried a CSD A3 but it was declined. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Just an infobox. No indication of notability whatsoever.~~ Safiel (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attapeu F.C., who play at this stadium. The current infobox is inaccurate as it is a copy from SCG Stadium in Thailand, whereas Attapeu is in Laos. I don't see any reason for a full AfD discussion here rather than an immediate redirect: would either of the editors calling for deletion object to that? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect would be fine. Safiel (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator and redirect as suggested. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:25, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Darkwind (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phycological Society of America[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Appears to be a non-notable organization, as I am unable to find evidence of notability to meet WP:ORG. The organization appears to publish an academic journal, and offers several awards, but I don't see any significant coverage in secondary sources. The most I was able to find is announcements from similar organizations about joint meetings, etc. Also, the lack of articles for the other organizations they work with implies (but does not prove) a lack of notability. —Darkwind (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, the keep arguments make sense -- it's possible there aren't many sources because algae isn't very interesting... —Darkwind (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the US national society in its academic field. Although some of the organization is holds meeting with aren't notable (for example, when it holds a meeting together with a regional society for the place the meeting is held) some of them are extremely important societies. The positive half of this is the important part, for one does not expect everything an organization does to be important. Their journal is in WOS [1], and therefore notable and at the very least an article could be made on it. Finding actual sources that discuss any such organization is admittedly difficult, but I can probably find something. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This appears to be a serious and well-established academic society, but I can't find any third-party sourcing, and even from the society's web site I am having difficulty finding out such basic questions as: How big is it? Is the membership growing, stable, or shrinking? Do its members view the International Phycological Society as a rival, a friendly alternative, higher or lower prestige? Given its name, is its scope purely limited to the US, or does it have significant participation from other countries? In the absence of reliable sources it is very difficult to say anything encyclopedic about this society. But if sources do turn up I'd be happy to change my mind, because to me this looks like the sort of organization that should have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phycology is a niche discipline with wide influence including biofuels, diversity, ecology and so on. PSA is among the oldest organizations devoted to the study of algae. The Journal of Phycology currently has an impact factor of 2.071 and is ranked 28/97 for Marine & Freshwater Biology and 59/190 for Plant Sciences.[2] While trying to find independent WP:RS giving indepth coverage to PSA, I found none but did find membership or publication in the journal listed in the CV of hundreds of academics and scientists. The journal is frequently cited to support WP articles from algae to Lake Bonney (Antarctica). The article needs some work, consolidating the meeting list to one link and expanding the section on awards and the journal. This keep is an "occasional exception" to the WP:ORG guideline for the good of WP. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:22, 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 speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted per csd g11 by User:Jimfbleak. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Day Poems[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. Endorsed PROD removed by AMON user. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember trying to do a save on this when it was PRODed and was unable to find even a scrap of notability for this book. I'm going to try to speedy this as someone has added some promotional tones to the article. Given the extremely limited range of this book, I'm going to guess it's a case of someone coming on here to promote their book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:16, 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) 06:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BazQux Reader[edit]

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

Article on a piece of software, contributed by an editor whose account name resembles that on the two blog posts that are its sole references (and the first of which commenced "We are happy to announce..." indicating a proximity to the product). Although several listings of the product can be found, none appear to be substantial evidence that the product meets the WP:NSOFT criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a relatively new blog/news reader released in June 2012. In a Google search, I found a number of webpages announcing the software, some of which were lightly editied versions of the original announcement. I could not find any in-depth references about the software that were not connected to the author of the software. I agree with the nom that there are likely conflict of interest issues, see WP:COI for details. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has passed for the software to be reviewed by third parties to generate the needed independent sources needed for notability. When such in-depth reliable secondary sources appear, recreation of te article is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, my searches through Google News provided nothing and the website suggests this is a rather small product as there isn't much information. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article lacks sufficient 3rd party references to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 03:05, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Ansell[edit]

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

A six year old article that is just one line and extremely unlikely to grow to any significant size. The only ref, now only on the archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20080913054008/http://www.kipar.org/piratical-resources/pirate-fame.html#John%20Ansell shows that the page content (what there is!) is a rather close paraphrase. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Because there is a possibility of paper-based books, I'm voting weak delete for now. I was somewhat confident a Google Books search would be helpful so I searched "John Ansell" and the two locations given but it only provided this which is an obvious copy from that link. A different search, "John Ansell pirate" provided nothing useful either. However, searching the 1935 book listed, I found this (first result from the top) which provides little through the preview and clicking it does not provide a clearer preview. My next search was "Henry Morgan John Ansell" which provided results here (this one seems irrelevant as it mentions burials in 1557), here (which mentions both a "John Ansell" and "Sir Henry Morgan") and here (scroll down a little bit, this is probably the best one of all because it actually contains useful information). However, as useful as it may be, it suggests he was only active in the 1660s thus a minor pirate so a small merge to Sir Henry Morgan may be appropriate. If there is other evidence, it's probably not easy to find, if it still exists. If so, this is probably the reason this article hasn't received much activity since 2006. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The paucity of refs means that it fails WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Henry Morgan per SwisterTwister (or, as Pirates of the Americas puts it, "See also Morgan, Sir Henry"). My own searches on Google Books lead me to the Jamaican Historical Review, where the historical document from which the "half-dozen Captains" of Pirates of the Americas were derived is transcribed; and to the primary source of the article, The Life of Sir Henry Morgan on Project Gutenberg, the "1935 book" mention by SwisterTwister (search Ansell), which is an obvious reference to the same document. In short, three passing mentions as one of six pirate captains, most of which were more notable than he, all referring to one source do not imply independent notability. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This book appears to have a section about John Ansell, but from the snippet displayed by Google Books I can't determine whether it tells us much more than that he was one of Morgan's captains in the raids against Puerto Principe. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 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) 06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amram Aburabeh[edit]

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

Moved to Amram Aburabia, see reationale below. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His entry in the Daat Encyclopedia (by the Herzog College) is very detailed and refers to many articles and entries in various reference works covering the subject; he was apparently quite prominent. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Otzar HaHochma (a database of rabbinic literature) finds about 280 results for his name. Based on a random sample, the majority of them are citations of the subject as a leading rabbinic authority (usually on the Jewish customs of Jerusalem). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also found (with the Historical Jewish Press database) an article about him (solely) in Maariv, from July 14, 1960 (p. 3)—this is one of the sources of the Daat Encyclopedia entry. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 06:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An individual whose works demonstrate notability, demonstrated both within the article and in the additional materials listed by הסרפד, but whose article needs significant reworking. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the page to Amram Aburabia - the original spelling seems to be an alternate spelling used by some members of the same family, but never in reference to the article's subject. Note that many more English sources can be found with the correct spelling. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there are at least three variations on the spelling of his surname in Hebrew, all of which I have found used in reference to the subject: "אבורביע" "אבורביעה" "אבו רביע". There are many more spellings in English and French. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO and Hasirpad. I added a cleanup-rewrite tag, as the page needs a thorough copyedit and the sourcing does not show up in a regular Footnotes section. Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 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) 06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelso[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced original research about a fictional character. Do we use wp:BIO for fictional people? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, we don't. Consider using WP:FICT and WP:WAF instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would think this is a no duh for a notable subject. Just because it is in bad shape doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Somebody just needs to take the time to work on it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a GNews search adding "Kutcher" to the character's quoted name reveals plenty of RS news hits, which suggests that the character is notable, regardless of how badly written the current article is--and yes, it does look like a real stinker on my skimming. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having checked WP:BEFORE with policies such as WP:FICT and taken a look at other featured fictional character articles, I found some independent sources and for the in-universe content cited everything with ((cite episode)). The Storyline section is particularly accurate to the episode summaries and I was about to source a few independent episode summaries to corroborate the Wikipedia ones such as TV Guide. While not as verbose as say [3] it still should be taken at the same depth of credibility. Lastly, the issue now at hand is that the article has one section that appears largely original research and finding more sources, but notability has been established in the scale of other fictional character articles and the rest are surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 23:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 19:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Ramsey[edit]

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

WP:SPIP, fails notability test. Very limited outside sources or citations. Only notable for contribution to Red Vs. Blue which has its own page that also covers him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milestones1975 (talk • contribs)

Keep Easily passes notability guidelines. Also, I feel you are a little too new to assume an article requires deletion. RAP (talk) 5:14 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep Easily meets notability guidelines the article however does need more cites than the four it currently has. Kyle1278 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Gem Society[edit]

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

There appear to be two WGS organisations findable on Google - one is .org, the other .biz. Neither appear to be this one. I can find no link between any WGS and any of the names mentioned in the article, no sign that either of the two organisations is based in Manchester. I cannot trace the documentary referred to, and if "This group has strong philanthropic roots, their monumental efforts at fund raising for those less fortunate have been well noted" is true, it has escaped my investigation. There may be something I have missed, but unless evidence to the contrary is brought forward, I am inclined to call this a probable hoax (but not blatant enough for speedy deletion). Peridon (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well known group in England. The .com or .biz organizations are fairly new. Just because a group starts up a website does not give it priority over an organization that has a small membership for over 20 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersdotter (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so well known, could you provide us with some evidence that it exists, and complies with WP:GROUP? I searched for World Gem Society with each of the names given, and for the documentary film in another search by itself, and could find nothing. Peridon (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Simple case of non-notable company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and unsourceable in my searches. FRankly, the article smells of of a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 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) WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modu[edit]

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

Once all the marketing guff and copyright violating photos are removed we are left with an article that says "this small company used to make phones". Delete. Biker Biker (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion on the underlying nomination itself. If deleted, should become a redirect to Modu Chanyu. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Modu's acquisition by google received some attention. e.g [4],[5] Ankh.Morpork 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Modu was established by Dov Moran who is one of the pillars of the Israeli start-up culture. The company received much publicity and hype and was on its way to become the Israeli Nokia, until it missed foreseeing Apple releasing the iPhone. There isn't really too much fluff here at all anymore. --Shuki (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company has coverage in multiple reliable sources, making it notable: above plus[6][7][8][9][10] Last ref claims it's in the Guiness Book of Records. Coverage in media on multiple continents in various languages. Proposer seems to want to delete because it's a bad article not because it's intrinsically non-notable or unencyclopedic, but that's not valid grounds. Article contains some info, and could easily be expanded. Even if nobody cares enough to improve it this week, that's reason to tag and wait, not to delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Constituent Assembly of the Republic of the Philippines[edit]

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

Apparently, this did not happen. Either delete or merge with 14th Congress of the Philippines. –H T D 16:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and use normal editing procedures to discuss where this content belongs, which would probably be in the Constitutional reform in the Philippines article under its original and MOSTITLE-compliant title of Charter Change. Deletion of this content is certainly not a way to improve this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, the relevant content are now in both articles, making this article irrelevant as this did not happen. It can thus be safely deleted without loss of information. The length can still be contained in those 2 articles, making splitting to daughter articles unnecessary. –H T D 03:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event did not happen. It does not exist. It is misleading to keep an article about an non-existant event. --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons listed above. Andrew (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple reason that it never happened (which is why it wouldn't work as a redirect). Even so, there isn't much coverage about it. Any information is better off in the 14th Congress of the Philippines article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-existent event. All the article says is what will happen. If it never happened, then all the information in the article is false. Polymath49 (talk) 18:02, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ekhono taanchi[edit]

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

Previously a WP:PROD wiith the rationale "Unreferenced article created by an editor with a conflict of interest. No evidence that this film meets the notability criteria." The Prod was removed by an IP without comment, along with the maintenance tags. Issues remain unchanged so I am bringing this to AfD. AllyD (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remain open to the idea that sources might exist in another language, but I can't see where this film has received any coverage. It barely seems to have gotten any notice in the blogging world either, which is surprising. It also doesn't help that this has a decidedly promotional slant to it with how some of the wording is phrased.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Tokyogirl79, but alas, Delete StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:56, 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Webster, New York shooting[edit]

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

(contested PROD, objecting to an unwise opening to reason, but not adressing the point, which was...)Non- notable crime TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It depends how we define non-notable. The circumstances of the crime (the shooting of two firemen on active service) are rare so in that sense it meets WP:GNG and WP:N/CA, but shootings themselves, particularly those involving one or two individuals, are sadly a more regular occurrence, so in that respect it isn't so unusual. On the other hand this received international coverage, with the BBC News Channel running it as a lead story. I would say though it is quite early to have this article since the events it concerns only happened yesterday and there's possibly information that's yet to be released to the media. I recently wrote an essay in which I tried to set out some guidelines on when articles about criminal acts should appear on Wikipedia. Under those it would have been preferable to wait a while before creating this, but they're by no means policy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Its too soon to tell whether this event will prove to be of lasting significance. Sensible essay, btw.TheLongTone (talk)

Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although there has been substantial news coverage (both national and international), I think it is too soon to see what long-term effects this event will have. I don't have a crystal ball, I would say this event will be notable have enough news coverage to be kept. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dreadful tragedy but this is more suited for Wikinews. While it is much too soon to tell if this should be covered in more detail on Wikipedia, I suspect that, if this event were notable on the level of, for example, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it would have in all likelihood attracted enough attention to be bigger than it is at the moment. There is no evidence of extensive coverage beyond reporting of the initial incident and there is currently only one source on the page. The number of casualties is not shockingly large either. It appears to have broken no records or to have been especially unusual in any way. In short, it appears fairly routine and I doubt an encyclopedia of this nature would have a detailed analysis of every attack on firefighting personnel or ambulance personnel or anything similar. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While a spa tag may not be derogatory according to wikipedia guideline, I see no reason for it in this case, since the post is cogent, civil and is the only contribution this IP has posted: it is not as though they are spamming this discussion with an outre POV. Everybody has a right to an opinion.TheLongTone (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again. It is insulting. Perhaps the aggressor might like to read this. Today I have contributed to other discussions and my contributions involve topics such as a South American stratovolcano to a Kazakh plane crash. I couldn't care less about this bloody shooting, keep it for all I care. When does a person graduate beyond a "SPA" anyway? --86.40.201.132 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep The circumstances of this crime are rare indeed--indeed, according to a story in the local newspaper firemen don't train for these circumstances, and it's something that isn't tracked at any level.[11] But I'd like to see this article get fleshed out more before going to a full keep. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to full keep per international coverage. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we not rush to delete current events, especialy shootings like this. There is alot of information we still do not know can we wait atleast. JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable crime. Worldwide international coverage. BBC published the further analytics with killing notes. [12] NickSt (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a series of shootings this year, and eventually these can all be merged into a single article, "2012 Shootings" or something. 76.121.143.28 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I will first have to say I don't count as a completely neutral observer as I grew up in Webster - tho' I moved away forty years ago or near... But I don't think much harm would be done leaving it up for a short while, in case enough material is collected that could be of use to be merged into a more general article on the recent shooting incidents in the US. JoanR (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shootings in the US in 2012 would be a depressingly long article, I think. Imo this crime would become notable if it helped to limit the availability of weapons of mass slaughter in the US, but holding my breath I am not.TheLongTone (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable based on sources. Everyking (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but too early too tell. The event has garnered widespread international attention (in Russia, India, UK, China, Canada, Australia), which is part of the criteria for notability. But whether it has a lasting effect might be too early to tell.VR _talk 10:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : international coverage. Mightymights (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It has been covered nationally by CNN, USA Today, ABC News, etc. and therefore meets the GNG. The only exceptions to the GNG are those that are WP:what Wikipedia is not; this could be considered a borderline WP:NOT#NEWS violation, although I personally think it is too early to determine if this event has the "enduring notability" that that policy talks about. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources are chronologically independent; we need solid coverage from books or journals, or from news sources that don't report this as news. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent coverage internationally, and agree with RedSoxFan that this nomination is too early to discuss "enduring notability" Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 23:30, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Keep Seems like an obviously notable event to me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The expansive coverage, both in number of articles and where they articles are published, shows that this is clearly the sort of notable event that we cover at wp. Not even close. This should be SNOWed, to remove the unfortunate tag at the top of the article, and not sully the article any longer. Not even close at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 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 speedy delete. G7 per author request. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Club World Cup sponsors[edit]

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

This list currently serves no purpose, since sponsorship of the FIFA Club World Cup is not a topic covered to any great length by third-party media sources. Furthermore, the vast majority of the content does not refer to the FIFA Club World Cup, but rather serves to give the reader information about the sponsors themselves - information that should be found in the main articles about those companies. There is barely any content in this article that makes it worthy of a separate page. – Pee Jay 10:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 11:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Serves no real purpose. There is nothing here that can't be seen on the actual Club World Cup article or the company pages themselves. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As it lists the event sponsors of each edition and gives background information on each of them. FIFA themselves have pages dedicated to listing them. Since we are talking about premier club football competition in the world, the importance does not lack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God Football (talk • contribs) 11:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not up to us to determine the importance of a subject for ourselves, it is based on the coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party media sources; as I have said, there are hardly any third-party sources referring to sponsorship of the FIFA Club World Cup. No one is disputing that the FIFA Club World Cup is an important competition; what is in dispute is the notability of the competition's sponsors. – Pee Jay 12:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not the subject of any significant coverage and therefore not notable. Giant Snowman 12:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is just copy and paste summaries of the various sponsors from their existing Wikipedia articles coupled with a list of who sponsored the competition when. Are they notable in the context of being sponsors of this competition? I think not. FIFA has dedicated a page to them due to their status as sponsors, however independent sources do not recognise this to be notable. C 679 12:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Although the competition itself is notable and the sponsors themselves are also notable, there is virtually no significant independent coverage on FIFA Club World Cup sponsors. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 13:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Information about sponsors not deserve a separate article, at most can be cited appropriate section of the main article.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading everyone's comments here, and seeing the point PeeJay made about third-party mentions, I am forced to agree that this article is not notable enough to stand on its own. God Football (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you, as the creator of the page, feel that the page should be deleted now (for good reason) then you should add this template (look at G7) to the page so we don't have to wait till an admin deletes it from seeing the AfD. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David McConaghie[edit]

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

While there are news articles on this individual, all of them cover him due to his involvement in a single event, an alleged crime that he may have been involved in. That means that as well as being a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS, this article is also a BLP violation on the basis of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This article follows disagreements on whether this material should be included in [BLP of David Simpson MP] consequently I'm concerned that this article may later be used to reintroduce that material, which is highly questionable on BLP grounds. Valenciano (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this person has attained notability, whether as politician, functionary or campaigner. AllyD (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far from being "relatively unknown", the subject easily meets WP:WELLKNOWN criteria, having been prominent in political and religious life in Northern Ireland: he was once regarded as a potential successor to Ian Paisley as head of the Free Presbyterian Church, and has been a minister of religion in two churches, and the press spokesperson for at least one of them; he has been the spokesperson for a leading evangelical pressure group, the Caleb Foundation; he has been the election agent, chief aide, speechwriter and spokesman for a Member of Parliament. None of the sources that refer to "an alleged crime that he may have been involved in" actually claim that he was involved in that or any alleged crime, and the WP article does not even mention the alleged crime or any possibility of his having been involved in that alleged crime or any other. WP:NOTNEWS has absolutely no relevance here, as the article does not refer to the supposedly "non-news" event; WP:BLP1E has no relevance, as the subject is notable on several grounds, none of which are the event not mentioned in the article; WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant, as the article does not refer to any crime. Valenciano additionally expresses concern that this article "may later be used to reintroduce" material to which he/she takes exception - it is absurd to suggest than an article should be deleted from Wikipedia in case it is at some future point edited to introduce material that is not and never has been in it. This proposal is an abuse of the Articles for Deletion process. Brocach (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, this and this all suggest that your interest in McConaghie stem from the fact that you want to add blp violating material about him, else you would simply have created the article about him in the first place, so I don't think my concerns on that score are unwarranted. However the main reason why the article should be deleted is not because it may later be used as a WP:COATRACK to disparage either him or David Simpson, it's that the subject clearly isn't notable. If the subject was as well known as you claim then we'd expect him to be covered in some depth in reliable sources. Yet his only coverage is a day or two after his arrest, in stories in the context of a single event. I've yet to see a single reliable source covering him in any depth that is not about that event, making this a textbook case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. None of your other claims of notability (minister of religion, press spokesman for a pressure group, speech writer for a politician) meet any of our criteria at WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never added any BLP-violating material, either in this article or anywhere else, so there are no grounds for suggesting that I "want to add" any. The sheer lunacy of suggesting that any article should be deleted in case at some future date someone adds something improper means that no Wikipedia content should be allowed to stand. Brocach (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread the above again: "the main reason why the article should be deleted is .... that the subject clearly isn't notable." Valenciano (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,other than recent arrest no news coverage in which he is mentioned as anything more than a spokesman forone organiation or another.TheLongTone (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many more sources and details have been added, relating to his profile in churches and other religious bodies, in politics, and as a former member of the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland. No doubt other material will be added - it is hardly reasonable to judge any new article within a day of its creation. His arrest, incidentally, is not mentioned in the article. Brocach (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His arrest notability falls well short of WP:PERP for perpetrators and there seems to be no significant independent coverage of him independent of the toilet cam thing, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about - in fact, does not even mention - his arrest. Every one of the 15 cited sources (to date) deals with other matters that go to establish his notability, and almost all are independent and authoritative. Brocach (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The major source you have added (the Belfast Times article) only exists because of the arrest. Which surely should be added to the articleTheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand TheLongTone's view that the arrest should be added to the article, but there is a current discussion[13] at BLPN about whether it can be referred to and I'd rather give that time to be considered. Brocach (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To counter this "lots of sources" argument: four of the "sources" which Brocach claims establish notability are letters which the subject wrote to newspapers, which anyone can do. This one and the archived one from Coleraine Free Presbyterian Church are not independent of the subject and similarly don't count for establishing notability. Eight of them are identical news stories the day after his arrest, (tellingly there doesn't even seem to have been any news stories about that event since) thus those sources fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E criteria. This link doesn't even mention him. The CAIN ref and the NI Assembly ref simply mention that he was appointed to the Civic Forum, membership of which doesn't meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN and those ones are certainly not about the subject. Valenciano (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. Insofar as notability is indicated by speaking for the ruling Democratic Unionist Party at more than a local level, McConaghie's achieving publication in Dromore, Derry, Carrickfergus, Coleraine etc does indeed go some way to showing that this Portadown-based full-time activist has a higher-than-average profile. Having a dozen sermons published on the website of a church in which he is "only" a visiting speaker is also significant in establishing his prominence within Free Presbyterianism, and lends weight to the independently sourced assertion that he was viewed as a potential successor to Ian Paisley. Not a single one of the news stories, much less the eight(!) bizarrely claimed by Valenciano, is from the day after his arrest: the date of his arrest is not mentioned in the article, although it can be found in the sources. The stories are not "identical": each of those cited has something new to add, and I deliberately avoided citing every use of agency stories carried identically by multiple outlets, even though that would have helped to indicate this character's notability. Indeed, the date of his arrest is not even mentioned in the article because the article is not about, and makes no reference to, the fact of his arrest. There is nothing significant in the non-inclusion (to date) of news stories after someone is arrested: there is a sub judice rule which the media often, and wrongly, interpret as applying from arrest, rather than to a trial process. In principle anything truthful can still be written about him, which is not to say that it needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia, least of all in this, legally ultra-safe, bio article. The single link that doesn't mention McConaghie by name is there because it is about a Good Friday Agreement institution to which McConaghie was appointed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, as one of only five representatives of organised religion in Northern Ireland, and establishes that his appointment had not been formally rescinded as late as 2011. The cumulative effect of McConaghie's media work and appearances on behalf of the Elim Pentecostal Church, the Free Presbyterian Church, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Caleb Foundation, the Civic Forum etc. suffice to bring him into the WP:POLITICIAN fold under the rubric of "significant press coverage". I have (a little) difficulty coming up with any logical explanation of why Valenciano is trying so energetically - on Baby Jesus' birthday - to keep accurate and amply sourced facts about this interesting, important and newsworthy unionist political figure out of Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't believe that you're seriously arguing that having letters published in a few small local newspapers equates to notability. I'm afraid I disagree that a religious minister talking about God is notable, since that it is, you know, what religious ministers tend to do. The sermons you refer to were published on the website of the local branch of a church with 12,000 members and their lack of significance can be seen from the fact that even the McConaghie article acknowledges that they've been deleted from there. If that tiny church didn't deem them to have lasting significance, neither should we. It's a moot point anyway since the church website can be dismissed as a non-independent source.

There are 8 sources in the article all from the same date and all focusing on the criminal element and consequently they all suggest that it was a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" news story. Since the bulk of the biographical material in that article comes from those sources we are still in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E territory. All coverage of this individual aside from that consists of fairly trivial mentions, none of which satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Despite your claims that the individual is "well known" you haven't been able to find a single source covering him in any depth which is independent of the alleged crime.

Other claims to notability: spokesman for a political party. No, especially since he clearly wasn't a major spokesman and most crucially didn't receive any significant coverage in that role.

The Civic Forum of Northern Ireland was basically a quango/talking shop with no powers. Unelected, its members don't meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. He was a member until 2011 only in a strict legal sense. The forum only met 12 times over a two year period, was effectively scrapped post-2002 as ineffective and was even described by member groups as too large and unwieldy, having 60 members for a population of 1.5 million.

Regarding your "baby Jesus birthday" comments, since you raised the issue let me comment: your userpage says that you are the one, not me, who lives in a country where 25th December is celebrated as both a religious and public holiday. I therefore suggest you ask the question to yourself, 25 December is a key "family day" in Ireland, where your userpage says that you live, yet rather than spending it enjoying turkey, stuffing and mince pies with loved ones, you've spent much of it (a ten hour period from 11:14 to 21:31) on a single minded effort to include this material. Why is the inclusion of that material so important to you, that you'd devote most of one of the biggest Irish public holidays to it? That campaign has so far seen you ignore WP:BRD, breach WP:1RR, ignore a third opinion and now you are badgering editors who have argued for delete in this debate here and here, in possible violation of WP:CANVASS. I'd respectfully suggest that you take a step back and let discussions run their course, maybe go off and actually enjoy the holiday period in Ireland rather than, as you put it, "experiencing some frustration" over Wikipedia, which believe me, ain't worth it. Valenciano (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has developed nicely over the past few days and it should now be obvious to nany neutral observer that Valenciano's objections are unfounded. This article deals with a genuinely notable figure in Northern Ireland politics, gives a full and balanced account of his career, is supported by a wide range of credible sources and does not even mention the unfortunate business that Valenciano keeps insinuating into this discussion. I invite earlier pro-deletion editors to reconsider. Brocach (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed and you're really not listening to what people tell you, are you? That the article doesn't mention "the unfortunate business" is not the point. The point, as TheLongTone already explained to you above, is that the main refs covering his career only exist because of that "unfortunate business." They all focus on the alleged crime and thus fall under WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Letters to small local newspapers don't demonstrate notability since anyone just has to write to them enough times and they'll get published. Numerous ones show him as a religious minister giving sermons, as far as you'll get from being notable, especially if they are published on websites connected to the small local church (12000 members) making them non independent sources. All the Caleb foundation related ones are similarly non-independent sources. Numerous "references" e.g. this one, this one and this one are primary sources about other people, and working as an assistant to a politician satisfies neither WP:GNG nor WP:POLITICIAN. The other sources don't address him directly in any detail, several don't even mention him at all (e.g. this or this) or are non-reliable, like the sluggerotoole blog.

Ignoring advice to find sources which address him directly in detail, you appear to have decided that the way to keep this article, besides canvassing other editors, is to pad it out with whatever minor trivia you can find. From long experience of deletion debates, I can tell you that that certainly isn't the right approach. Wikipedia considers the quality of sources provided, not their quantity, I've seen articles with 120 "references" bite the dust in an AFD and the McConaghie article certainly falls into that bracket. Valenciano (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctantly coming to the view that I will never persuade you, Valenciano, since you have shown such determination to keep mention of this individual - with or without reference to the matter not mentioned in the article - out of Wikipedia; just as you strove to suppress references to the sex offences against children of one of the very few elected TUV reps in the TUV article. However, more balanced editors may take the view that the article as it now stands has addressed every single criticism levelled at it by you. It is about an immensely influential individual who for years was one of the key figures in the nexus between DUP politics and the evangelical movement - a highly significant element in the political life of Northern Ireland, regardless of the number of members of any of the particular denominations involved. The article is neutral in tone, more than adequately sourced, and does not, as you keep failing to understand, engage BLP:CRIME because it does not even mention crime; the subject definitely satisfies WP:GNG, and you cannot seriously contend that McConaghie hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so as to be "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"; WP:BLP1E clearly doesn't apply to an article that deals with multiple events over at least 15 years of a career of political and clerical activism, and doesn't mention the "one event" that you allude to; he may or may not meet WP:POLITICIAN (I reckon he does) but he doesn't have to, and not meeting that particular criterion is not a reason for deletion. You keep wheeling out these points even though they have already been dealt with above. Brocach (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I regard his views as obnoxious, as part of the hyper-protestant tendency in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, he looks like a notable campaigner for his theological/political position. As I live in England, I am not too familiar with that side of Ulster politics. It looks to me as if his political opponents are trying to hang inappropriate allegations on him, contrary top WP BLP policy. That is not ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your keep, I prefer to keep my views on Mr McConaghie to myself and I think you are mistaken about anyone trying to hang inappropriate allegations on Mr McConaghie. There are no allegations against him in the article. Certain allegations exist, but if you take the trouble to look beyond Wikipedia, you will find that they did not originate with his political opponents - quite the contrary.

The oddest thing about this nomination for deletion is that it was made within a few hours of the article having been created, and rests largely on objections that have been amply addressed as the piece developed, plus the bizarre reasoning that at some point in the future someone might put something into it that contravened some Wikipedia policy. Brocach (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that since the last of the 'delete' votes was recorded, at 12:56 on 25 December, the article has become five times longer and has seven times as many sources. Every single objection raised to it by all three individuals who wanted it deleted has been addressed in full either by additional materials, sources or here in the talk page. Brocach (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that you have again ignored what people have told you. Padding out a non notable subject by adding "sources" which consist of blogs, non independent self published sources, primary sources, trivial mentions and ones where the subject isn't even mentioned do not demonstrate notability. Even the solitary keep vote other than your own acknowledges that the core references in the article may be contrary to WP:BLP policy. Since 25 December nothing has changed, the only refs covering this person in any detail are about the alleged crime and thus contrary to WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Valenciano (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating unfounded claims that the article breaches WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS does not make it so. No crime is mentioned in the article, and the content establishes the notability of the subject beyond any doubt. Brocach (talk) 22:10, 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. postdlf (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eboy Bautista[edit]

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

Contested prod. This person's status as a reality show contestant is the only thing that saved the article from speedy deletion, but there is no indication that this is enough to pass notability. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he didn't win, nor finished into the top three. Also, he has not made any other significant work to meet notability standards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For consideration he didn't win as a contestant but he was given acting opportunities with minor roles and counting. - Ebzster

Delete Supporting acting roles are just evidence of a man-with-a-job like any other. No evidence that this person meets WP:NACTOR. AllyD (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh ok.. A lot of other actors are also just doing supporting roles but get listed in Wikipedia with no problem. But I don't want to get them into trouble. So, you can delete this article entry then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebzster (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with the reality show season article. Just one supporting role. The show's website and the Wikipedia article doesn't even list him in the cast. Maybe try again if he's billed... for like 5 supporting roles. –H T D 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just too soon to have an article yet due to a lack of reliable coverage and major roles. No prejudice against recreation if he becomes more popular or gets more coverage in the future. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 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) 04:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The sources are either primary sources, or they don't mention the Central Texas branch of Big Brothers Big Sisters in appreciable detail. Parts of the content aren't supported by the given sources at all. Huon (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas and speedy close. There might have been a mistake or difference of a opinion in evaluating the significance and reliability of the sources, but there's no need to penalise the article's creator and delete all their work through no fault of their own. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon! As I stated in my previous talk with Chris, I need help with the sources link and after asking him, he just approved the article. Can you help me in approving this article? Thank you! MrsChrissie (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at User talk:MrsChrissie. Huon (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CLUB, local chapters of organizations are not notable unless covered by sources from outside the local area. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local coverage is present, but nothing to show that this particular chapter has any specific notability outside of its parent organization per WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:CLUB. I can support moving it back to AfC. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 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 06:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CLUB. Also, per Ritchie, I can support moving it back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas without leaving a redirect. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Presidentman above. 1292simon (talk) 10:58, 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 Lemon Bucket Orkestra . MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Make Lemonade[edit]

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

Film lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Inclusion and awards in minor film festivals are not sufficient to demonstrate notability under WP:MOVIE. Conflict of Interest concerns have also been raised. RadioFan (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film festivals mentioned do not appear to be notable themselves. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival is the second largest film festival in France, next to Cannes Film Festival. Yohowithrum (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)~~See [14] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if being the "second largest" necessarily makes it notable, but even given that, how does that make this movie notable? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you should be the one who gets to judge how notable French short film festivals are. France is a major European film producer and even the 2nd largest short film festival would be considered notable, in the sphere of short film festivals. Every year 100,000 people attend Clermont-Ferrand, so yes, getting in IS a big deal. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't make it less notable. Anamatv (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Notability guidelines for films:

"The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." - The film is widely distributed on all Air Canada flights through their Video On Demand service. The film has received reviews from Moviefone and MSN.
"The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." - See awards from the Air Canada enRoute Film Festival, selected for People's Choice and Achievement in Documentary by industry professionals (see names).

"The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." See Lemon Bucket Orkestra. Yohowithrum (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)See [15] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yohowithrum does a disservice to his film by presenting this somewhat tortured interpretation of WP:NFILM, and I've discussed these same points with this user before. Firstly, showing a movie on an aircraft doesn't constitute widespread national (or international) distribution. Secondly, the award the film received was a minor one: the enRoute Film Festival is not a major festival and it receives very little coverage aside from press releases. Finally, the notability of the Lemon Bucket Orkestra is marginal at best: most of the references in the band's article are unreliable or trivial. That said: weak keep or merge with Lemon Bucket Orkestra. The references in the article are, in my opinion, sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Canada Film Festival isn't a film festival, it's a corporate contest. Other festivals mentioned are not significant enough to impact notability of this film. Shall we open a seperate AFD on the band? I've got similar concerns about its notability.--RadioFan (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFan, you cannot claim the Film Festival is not a Film Festival. A Film Festival is not a film festival if it's commercial or corporate? ALL Film Festivals are commercial and corporate. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC) See [16] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yohowithrum, I agree with your defense of EnRoute - since when has being a commercial film festival been a disqualifying factor in the movie industry?! Having said that, it's false to claim that ALL festivals are commercial and corporate - many are non-profits. Example: Toronto International Film Festival is a non-profit with a TON of corporate sponsors. In short: Keep. Anamatv (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anamatv, I believe Yohowithrum meant that that despite a film festival being non-profit, it is still supported by corporate sponsors. That said, yes, the Air Canada enRoute Film Festival is indeed a film festival. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~User:Pburka Please be civil and leave your nasty language out of this. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

To clarify, I talked to Pburka about it, and I thought the bit about doing a disservice was kind of smarmy and condescending, but yeah, 'nasty' might have been a strong word. Yohowithrum (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC) See [17] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG, having being covered in multiple independent sources. BOVINEBOY2008 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are a handful of somewhat independent sources. The eyeOpener is the student newspaper at the director's school. It has an interest in promoting the director. Air Canada and its magazine, enRoute, are the organizers of the festival. The Globe and Mail article is actually a press release. CTV etalk is arguably independent, but in my experience it's the television equivalent of a press release. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize that I was excessively harsh in this response. There are a number of borderline sources in the article, as I pointed out above. But please don't discount the MSN, Moviefone and Dorkshelf sources. In my opinion, these are sufficient for WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment worth noting that the article was created by and the only significant editor of the article is the filmaker himself. This is the subject

of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Yohowithrum_COI a request for arbitration. RadioFan (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This link doesn't link to anything RadioFan? StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 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 Huntley (public) _talk 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage, unimportant festival win. If it does well at Clermont-Ferrand, then there could be an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Therefore, since most of the articles focus on the film, the festival wins or the director, they are not trivial.Etobgirl (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to be notable. Morefoolhim 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a bit of coverage. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it must be one or the other but i think that a merge with Lemon Bucket Orkestra would be the most appropriate action. there is insufficient coverage of film to constitute notability, however I think that it is relevant information on the Lemon Bucket Orkestra article.minamato (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Yohowithrum - WP:NFILM and as per Bovineboy2008 - WP:GNG. Etobgirl (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the film appears to pass, even if in a borderline way, two or three criteria of WP:NFILM. A merging with Lemon Bucket Orkestra could also be a good compromise. Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which WP:NFILM criteria do you see it passing? There are WP:GNG concerns, specifically around the coverage in 3rd party sources. Pburka has raised concerns that the coverage either has a promotional interest and/or is largely a reprint of a press release.--RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"which WP:NFILM criteria do you see it passing?" see Yohowithrum's comments above. None of these arguments are convincing "per se", instead, IMHO, the sum of them speaks in favor of a keep/merge outcome. Cavarrone (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather than pointing to another's !vote, It would be far more helpful to the closing admin for the AFD to hear your specific thoughts on how you see this article meeting WP:NFILM. There are questions about the validity of that !vote anyway, Yohowithrum is the filmaker, trying very hard to see that the article on his film is not deleted. He's also currently banned for sockpuppetry.

Re: Sorry but your above comment is misrapresenting my vote. My argument was not pointing to another's !vote but, after having read the discussion and taken a look at the article, my argument is that the film is a classic "borderline" topic but ultimately closer to be notable than not. It received a few coverage (even if probably not sufficent enough to pass GNG by itself), featured a significant involvement by a notable person (here a musical group, Lemon Bucket Orkestra), won an award in a minor - but ultimately notable - festival and is entering one another notable festival. As written above none of these elements is a guarantee of notability by itself, but the sum of these elements goes towards a (minor) notability. Cavarrone (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic lacks enough coverage in reliable sources to maintain a stand alone article per WP:GNG. Without enough source material, text from press releases, weekly student newspapers, etc. are being used to give bulk to the article so that it has the appearance of a Wikipedia article. The trouble is that the reliable source community does not feel that this topic is notable (otherwise, they would be writing about it). Wikipedia's articles are here to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. In this case, a representative survey of the relevant literature is text that does not amount to a stand-alone Wikipedia article -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there are quite a bit of reliable sources, especially the official reviews, and are met by GNG. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Pburka, Yohowithrum and Bovineboy2008. The film meets GNG and WP:NFILM. Significant coverage as well as independant, reliable sources. This is an article independant of the one on Lemon Bucket Orkestra that is valuable to Wikipedia. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:36, 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, MBisanz ^talk 06:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Lemon Bucket Orkestra. There simply isn't enough notable coverage of the film -- as opposed to media mentions -- independent of the Ryerson college paper. Given that this is a Ryerson student film, I would have at least liked to see some significant article about the film, as opposed to the musical group, in mainstream press. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like the information of this page isn't just about the band, but also about the film, the festivals and the filmmakers and would bloat Lemon Bucket's page, and warrants its own page. Also, there seems to be more than enough coverage. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC) See [18] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins seem very relucatant to close this discussion for some reason. Perhaps we can speed up the process by coming to some concensus. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if we can agree on a selective merge to the parent article on the band. RadioFan (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment I believe the admins are reluctant because no consensus has been made. And isn't the timing around 7 days after each AfD nom and relisting? StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Per significant coverage. Notable film about a notable band, in two pretty prominent film festivals. There's too much sourced information here to merge the article to Lemon Bucket Orkestra's page. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nortel related articles[edit]

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

It is an unannotated list of which the links should all be part of the Nortel articles themselves. While WP:CLT states that lists can compliment categories and templates I don't see that in this case. This is one of a number of lists recently created by User:Ottawahitech. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DOAL. This is better served by a category. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:DOAL, like the other lists this user created in the past day or so. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog, yes you are absolutely correct. I also created this list, but no one has nominted it (or the articles linked in it) for deletion. Why is that do you think? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. It's now nominated. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be more in the spirit of an outline, though it needs to be better structured. See for example Outline of Apple Inc. — Frankie (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list does not complement the category and is duplicating ((Nortel)), which better serves its purpose. Ryan Vesey 04:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan Vesey, you have voted Keep on another similar list also created by me and also nominated for deletion by user: Alan Liefting. Can you please explain why one list is a Keep while the other is a Delete. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the sole reason for this deletion nomination is to try and hide evidence of mass delettions. Am I the only editor who believes that this nominator (with the help of a couple of others) is removing all historic Nortel related articles+lists+wikiproject+portal one by one? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of these "mass nominations" cannot be hidden. AfDs are archived for all to see. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting, In that case would you kind enough to help people asking for evidence over here to find all the Nortel/Avaya deletion discussions started by you? Ottawahitech (talk)

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, WP:LISTPURP, ~~WP:DOAL and WP:CLN~~ Ottawahitech (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP: It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic'

WP:LISTPURP:Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial Ottawahitech (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP and WP:DOAL are part of WP:CLN. WP:LISTPURP is a WP:MOS so it is not valid in a WP:AFD. But we should always think about the WP:READER. LOL -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting, Thanks for pointing out that WP:CLT and WP:NOTDUP are one and the same - funny you use it as rationale for deletion while I do the opposite. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be reaching here, but it's possibly because in the other articles, someone other than yourself has actually bothered to turn them into a useful list. Dumping unfinished slop into articlespace and then expecting everyone else to clean up after you is not the way to build the encyclopedia. Nor is disrupting it because you feel there's a vast conspiracy to delete stuff. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:50, 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, MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would be better as a category or "See Also" section in Nortel. 1292simon (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is already a Category:Nortel (with subcats) and a Template:NortelSystems. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just wondering why some items are being removed from the list while this deletion discussion is taking place? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was one link removed because it is a redirect apparently. It is often the case that articles are edited while listed for AfD, although they are usually made to improve the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:54, 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 merge to Innovative Communications Alliance. Courcelles 00:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft–Nortel Innovative Communications Alliance products[edit]

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

Covered by the Innovative Communications Alliance article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nom that this list of products is already covered in the parent article, and there appears to be no reason to split it off. That could have been dealt with just by redirecting it, though now that we're in an AFD, might as well delete because there is no edit history worth preserving and I'm having a hard time imagining this as a useful redirect. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the sole reason for this deletion nomination is to try and hide evidence (see all the redlinks in the list). Am I the only editor who believes that this nominator (with the help of a couple of others) is removing all historic Nortel related articles+lists+wikiproject+portal one by one? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Evidence"? postdlf (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ Postdlf, sure – I guess you have already checked the four redlinks in this list?

When I first came across these deletions that started with the deletion of the Nortel wikiproject in October, 2012, I tried to build a case with evidence here. Unfortunately some editors objected and the page was archived prematurely. However if you check one of the suppressed sections titled Five articles from the suite of nortel articles have been nominated for deletion you will find several more redlinked/deleted articles. Reading these deletion discussions will provide links to several more older deletions…

But anyway, how about we start with this as the first block of evidence?

You may also want to skim over some of the more current deletion discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nortel related articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Application Server 5300

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Secure Network Access

I’d be happy to provide more if you feel it is necessary. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about some WP:FAITH? Anyways, I don't see the problem, each article will is judged on its own merits. 1292simon (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect To Innovative Communications Alliance; and only because it's been around since 2008. Can't see the reason for this list to exist; the number of products involved in the relationship that is the subject of the article is too low to justify having and maintaining a separate list. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog (btw did you notice that this list predates the article that you are proposing to merge the contents to?):

Who in your view will actually do the work of merging and making sure that none of the contents of this list is lost?

The creator of the list will probably not do it, since he is no longer active on wikipedia
One of the wikiprojects this article belonged to (wikiproject Nortel) has been deleted, so there is no way to ask any of its participants to help.
The other wikiproject this list belongs to (wp:WikiProject Microsoft) seems inactive at this point, so I doubt anyone from there will volunteer. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as per FreeRangeFrog. 1292simon (talk)
Merge and redirect per FreeRangeFrog. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 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. Mackensen (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protel[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, unable to find in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources Nounique names 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP is not a repository of technical info of this nature. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find many other references, in part because Protel is apparently a popular name for products and companies. The one reference in the article cites one other paper,

Foxall, D.G., Joliat, M.J., Kamel, R.F., Miceli, J.J., "PROTEL: A High Level Language for Telephony", Proc. 3rd Intl. Computer Software & Applications Conf. (November 1979), pp. 193-197.

and the ACM digital library claims only three other papers cited the article reference; none of these seem to be about the Protel language. There is a blog that gives a good description of the language but can't be used as a reliable source. There seem to be some companies that support Protel in Nortel systems. But unless there are reliable sources that never made to the web or JSTOR, two possibly peer-reviewed papers and a blog fall short of notability guidelines. Mark viking (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete This was the proprietary language of a major telephony manufacturer (Nortel), with tens of millions of lines of code. In the mid 1980s, systems written in Protel were among the largest working computing systems in the entire world. (Back then, even just 100,000 line systems were considered extremely large at that time, and 1 million line systems were often doomed to fail.) Despite the size of the systems, features of the language enabled the telephone switches written in it to be extremely reliable. Entire (hard cover, 1 to 2" thick, but proprietary) textbooks were written on these systems, with larger print runs than some academic textbooks.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the University of Toronto offered a Masters level Network Engineering course, which referenced Protel in class materials.
Protel's genesis predates the web, and thus articles mentioning it will likely be print-only, with a few exceptions for conference proceedings put up on the web, after the fact, or the odd mentions in people's blogs.

Just because a computing language is older than the web -- and thus hard to find on the web -- does not make it "not notable". 173.206.176.12 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With just a little bit of hunting, I found a headhunter ad (from the year 2000, when Nortel was still hiring), looking for PROTEL skills. "InfoWorld - Google Books". books.google.ca. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 22 December 2012. 173.206.176.12 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 06:12, 24 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 06:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [19] I found this, but someone with access to the 4 pages in the book (or whatever it is) will be needed for this to be of more use. I would strongly expect this to be notable, the problem is finding sources that are reliable, as it was long dead by the widespread appearance of the internet. I'm fairly sure the article should be named PROTEL, not Protel. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I empathise that references are harder to find since this product was pre-internet. However wikipedia relies on articles to be WP:VERIFIABLE. 1292simon (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an essentially dead proprietary language, finding references covering this topic in detail is going to be challenging but the fact remains that this was a major programming language. Nortel's switching equipment was and is used around the world and nearly all their product line was based in various forms of PROTEL. Mention ICSE papers, being the sole subject of IEEE COMPSAC 79 paper as well as some coverage in books is sufficient to demonstrate notability here. RadioFan (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The article currently just describes what PROTEL is, not why it matters. If it was explained how widely it was used, then that would be a huge improvement. 1292simon (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article definitely needs improvement.--RadioFan (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RadioFan. This was a notable heavily used language. But yes the article does need some clean up. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 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 merge and redirect to Ras al-Khaimah, but given that this information is already there, effectively just redirect. Michig (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Shaqq[edit]

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

Previously an orphan. Searches return hits from all the usual sites (e.g. travelingluck, fallingrain) with location/type from GNIS and no user-added information. Two different locations in those hits, neither of which appear to have a tower of any significance near them. No Panoramio pics near either location show a tower. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-English sources are provided. Google Books and News provided nothing relevant but it's likely any or all sources are not English or Internet-based. Honestly, there really isn't much information describing this tower. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ras al-Khaimah: the article does have a ref (gazetteer) and coordinates. In the future if you see such a geographical one-liner, please don't waste people time and just merge into the best fit notable geographical article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (and share your thoughts about promotion of WP:NGEO to the status of a guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The coordinates given in the article are for what is (using Google Maps) apparently a bit of desert, with some buildings within a few hundred metres but nothing that looks like a tower. The coordinates are also within the territory of Sharjah, not that of Ras al-Khaimah, as stated in the article. It is possible that it is just the coordinates that are wrong - some of the Google sources give alternative coordinates which would place it close to Ras al-Khaimah itself, but I don't seem able to verify that it is there either. PWilkinson (talk) 14:08, 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, MBisanz ^talk 06:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ras al-Khaimah. So far, English sources seem verifiable but none imply notability. Native language sources do not seem to have been found. (Indeed, I could not find the Arabic spelling of Bu Shaqq at all; I searched with the most intuitive spelling.) If reliable sources for notability will be found, a merge for the while will have done no harm. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Blown (Single)[edit]

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

Another unreleased musical recording lacking notability per WP:NALBUMS and completely unreferenced. Almost identical to another article nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Blown (United Nations Remix). - Mr X 12:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Single is not individually notable. 1292simon (talk) 12:39, 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, MJ94 (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Snowball closure. Sockpuppet of Jude Enemy -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos(entertainer[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I wanted to CSD the article as G3, since the sources don't say what the article claims they do, but I figured this would be a borderline case. Ish dar ian 05:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be completely made up and the sources are about different artists. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G3 - it's a pure promo article, and the sheer amount of garbage in the article, in terms of bad formatting, non-existent links, and even the name of the article, makes me want to cry. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources appear to have been copied from the sources for other articles, such as J. Cole, but those sources don't mention this rapper Chaos. The article is very difficult to follow, and if this person does have a successful rap career, it would be better to allow this article to be deleted and start over with a better-written article with relevant sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a delete and I'm sure I've seen it before under a slightly different title. Might be traceable if someone's got a better connection than I have (and more available time...). Peridon (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note it looks like there's at least 2, if not 3, socks involved in this - I've taken it to a SPI. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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. If a suitable target exists or is created later there is no prejudice against setting a redirect but, I don't really see on at this point. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned writers[edit]

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

A an unreferenced list without any sort of actual prose that adds nothing to WP. See also the comments on the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a List of books banned by governments etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Banned by whom? Is every author of every book tossed out by a banjo-plucking Southern school board to be included? Authors of works deemed ideologically deviant by the USSR or 1930s Germany or by reactionary Middle Eastern regimes? And where are the footnotes demonstrating this status? Arbitrary inclusion parameters for an overly broad topic... Carrite (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too vague, unreferenced and wil take forever to reference ever author. Delete for now JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into a list of lists. There's already List of authors and works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and List of authors banned during the Third Reich. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two lists you mention have a distinct qualifier. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A list of lists would be a completely different article, as "converting" this would first require a complete blanking. So feel free to do that regardless of how this AFD closes, with this title as a reasonable redirect to that list of lists. postdlf (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have List of books banned by governments. This list is much less useful, in that it does not indicate which works by these authors were banned, who banned them, when, or why. Furthermore, this list is alphabetized by the authors' first names. That's not standard practice in English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though some of these writers deserve to have their writings forgotten, or at least ignored, simply being banned by somebody is not enough of a unifying factor to justify a Wikipedia article. Pete unseth (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 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. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LeRoy Bell[edit]

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

Per WP:Event, finished 8th on American idol, not every contestant on the X-factor needs an article, most of the stuff is unsourced anwyays. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (previosly voted delete) Didn't finish high on both American Idol and The X Factor. None of his singles have charted, and seems like his temporary importance relies on his participation in the aforementioned events rather than his personal endeavours. I may revisit this later. New source provided by Miching are well enough. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep He is not just a reality television competitor. We have to take into consideration his songwriting achievements including two well-known and charting Elton John songs "Mama Can't Buy You Love" and "Are You Ready for Love". The first was a Top 10 hit in Britain in mainstream chart and #1 on Adult/ Contemporary. Also take into consideration the string of hits for Teddy Pendergrass and the collaborations with Gamble and Huff. He also wrote songs for Jennifer Lopez and the Freemasons! Hardly just a competitor who came in 8th and had no charting history. As for lack of references, this can be amended by "refimprove" note rather than a request to delete the article of an obvious notable artist. werldwayd (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any source on the article supporting those claims, and my search in Google returned nothing. Could you please provide such evidence? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You are asking for references. There are ample of references.... For example: For Elton John's "Are You Ready for Love", see discogs credits: http://www.discogs.com/Elton-John-Are-You-Ready-For-Love/release/1732005 that says: "Written-By– Casey James, Leroy M. Bell, Thom Bell"... For a comprehensive list see http://www.discogs.com/artist/Leroy+M.+Bell#t=Credits_All&q=&p=1 where he is credited for 63 credits including 53 writings or co-writings of songs not only for Elton John but for Engelbert Humperdinck, the Spinners, ets etc... Leroy Bell also has his own hits including "Livin’ It Up" a disco number that charted on the Billboard 100 reaching Top 40! See http://www.bet.com/news/music/2011/12/15/leroy-bell-ready-for-life-after-x-factor.html He also wrote for Gladys Knight and the Pips. See Perez Hilton site http://perezhilton.com/2011-11-02-leroy-james-had-success-with-bell-and-james-single who also talks about his album under the name "Bell and James" with his colleague Casey James way back in 1978 There are many other references if you care to research werldwayd (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry but we need reliable sources. Discogs and Perez Hilton are catalogued as unreliable sources, and thus we cannot count them for notability. The BET article is routinary coverage of The X Factor, in which he happened to participate, and thus is uncluded. This information is not good enough to meet notability guidelines. If you find reliable sources, I will gladly change my vote. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Our policy of WP:Event is being quoted for deletion of this article. I am indicating to you in response, through sources albeit you may consider unreliable that this is not so at all. Regardless of what you think about Discogs, aren't these ample evidence that this individual is not such a candidate for deletion on premises that he is a "one event guy" from X Factor? Isn't this why this individual was nominated for deletion in the first place? I am disputing and adequately showing his credits. That's the whole idea. He has a big catalogue of tens of songwriting for many renowned artists who have charted even reaching Top 10, he has his own album and his own single that has charted in Billboard reaching Top 40 etc etc... He has more than one song for Elton John no less that reached the top..... You don't need to change your opinion. Stick to it. I simply have other things to do than maintain one article to perfection... My effort to redeem this article is that by putting these evidences for the benefit of other colleagues, I am showing to them some alternative picture of him and his accomplishments if they are tempted to automatically endorse your criterion about LeRoy Bell as "that one event guy from X Factor" if it goes without challenge from editors like me. (your personal quote in support of deletion: "None of his singles have charted, and seems like his temporary importance relies on his participation in the aforementioned events (by which you mean his taking part in X Factor) rather than his personal endeavours"). That's what you said and that's what I am challenging... Other names that LeRoy Bell has written and worked for: Van Morrison, Sheryl Crow, Etta James, Al Green, Erykah Badu, LeAnn Rimes See http://www.buddytv.com/info/leroy-bell-info.aspx I am telling them, please see all these extra overwhelming evidences otherwise, of this individual's huge musical legacy and then decide rather than rubber stamp him as non-notable artist as he certainly is not. If I don't do at least that, I may take part of the blame of ridding this notable artist's article after having contributed so much to it. This nomination needs more consideration so that it does not pass without challenge. BTW, such a cool personal picture on your own page. I wish I had photos like that which I obviously don't. werldwayd (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ΛΧΣ, I am losing track of your objection. Are you saying that you really do not believe that Bell wrote "Mama Can't Buy You Love" and the rest or just that the page does not have valid sources for these claims? If the latter, then all you really should be asking for is refimprove. But if you really seriously doubt that he wrote any of the songs he is credited with, I find that hard to believe. But for starters, I just did a quick search for a source and found this: [20]. If you have any doubt that he did most of the things the article says, just do a couple of searches and you should be satisfied. 142 and 99 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I am not saying that I don't believe he didn't write the song. What I am saying is that if no reliable sources to back up the claims are to be found, then we cannot meet the notability threshold. I have to admit and after my initial quick search, I didn't even find substantial information about his X Factor endeavours, and I was not willing to search further. Of course, I can be proven wrong, and the Seattle Times source, although primarily based on the X Factor, discusses his life and I am satisfied with it. However, I stll believe we need more sources like that one. If those can be provided (and I may look for myself to see what I find), I will change my vote :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Werldwayd has pretty much explained precisely why the article should be kept. If Bell had never appeared on The X Factor, his list of credits and accomplishments would be viewed without question as easily exceeding the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. That his performance on that show and since then was not in itself notable does not diminish his prior significance. 142 and 99 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems pretty notable to me. He's been in several bands, appeared on The X Factor last year, and has wrote for several high-profile artists. Article needs some work, for sure, but I think we have enough notability here. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable with or without his talent contest appearances: Allmusic review, Seattle Pi (top ten single in South Africa), Seattle Times, Seattle PI, News Tribune, sources for songwriting credits: [21][22][23][24]. --Michig (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A10 as an article duplicating Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 18:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians?[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an essay that covers non-notable subjects. TBr and ley 03:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unhelpful and unencyclopedic rant. Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Majoreditor (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I think it's safe to say that this doesn't have a snowball's chance of surviving, so I'd say that this could and should be closed early.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might as well snow close this, since this is practically nothing more than a rant. Zappa O Mati 05:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Isn't there a CSD cat that this could be weasled under? Ish dar ian 05:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this can be speedily deleted it would be for the best. Jus da fax 06:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10: Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Altered Walter (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bazooka Cafe[edit]

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

This topic about an adult video game appears to fail WP:GNG. Additional opinion about the notability of video games on Wikipedia can be read at the essay Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Google Books and Google News archive searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. This page was found after searches, but it does not appear to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. This page at Anime News Network provides only sparse coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There might be Japanese sources if anyone knows what the Japanese characters are for the game. It's a long shot, but it's possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese title is ぷるるんカフェ. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some refs in English: Review at GamerTell, AMN news article, 2nd news article, HonestGamers.com review. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:42, 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:13, 11 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). (included on 01:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)) — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 18:59, 12 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) 13:03, 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 03:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not notable! BO | Talk 14:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews and news articles by Odie5533. Also reviewed by InizioPartita. Cavarrone (talk) 14:39, 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. Three relistings, nothing even resembling a consensus, or even a discussion, really. Feel free to renominate in a couple weeks Courcelles 00:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punyabhushan Awards (2009–2018)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contest PROD. Concern was: Not enough here to determine notability nor even what the award is about and no independent sources. Eeekster (talk) 08:28, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 08:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A3 no content whatsoever. Possibly a conflict edit, deleted and sent to AFD simultaneously? Cindy(talk to me) 08:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken the liberty of striking Cindy's comment. I believe this relates to a false start on the article at Punyabhushan Awards (2009%u20132018) which did qualify for speedy deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Snotbot seems to have re-added AfD template to the Punyabhushan Awards (2009–2018) after I had removed it post updating the article. Is there something else I need to do to stop this from happening again? --MK 15:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove it? Eeekster (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the template that was added - You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. That's why. Please also see the talk page of the article. --MK 14:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 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 03:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superficially, there are reliable sources in the article, and I do not see any reasons why it should be deleted, so keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:40, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Miller (FWP)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability other than being interviewed in the Federal Writers Project Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This biography is an essay about an ordinary person, as a subject of a writing project. No notability is asserted for the subject. May be valuable as a time capsule but not as an encyclopaedic biographical entry. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:34, 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, Courcelles 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article reads more like an essay and it hardly talks about her. Unfortunately, with her common name, I haven't much found despite adding "African American Prohibition" and "Federal Writers Project". While searching the first reference, "The Clubhouse", I found this which lists her birthdate as 1874. This book is available at a San Antonio library but I don't live near San Antonio and am in no position to go there. It doesn't seem as if this article could be redirected either. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert W. Johnson[edit]

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

No assertion of notability other than being interviewed for the Federal Writers Project Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This biography is an essay about an ordinary person, as a subject of a writing project. No notability is asserted for the subject. May be valuable as a time capsule but not as an encyclopaedic biographical entry. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:34, 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, Courcelles 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note the last section of the article. Most or all of the article could be fiction. Even if it is not, the article is about an ordinary non-notable individual, who does not become notable simply because he was interviewed. The writers of the project interviewed 1,200 persons, most or all of them ordinary people, and wrote about them. All 1,200 should not have articles about them. Only the project itself and what it covered would seem notable enough for an article. I found nothing about this Hubert Johnson in a High Beam search, a Questia search and the first few pages of a Google search. Person is not notable for a separate encyclopedia entry. Donner60 (talk) 08:25, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevalya Dham[edit]

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

An article with just one line and no reference. There is no reason for it to be on Wikipedia. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:42, 18 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 18. Snotbot t • c » 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the article, Kevalya Dham is a village, and thus (if I understand correctly) inherently notable and automatically kept if one reference is found. However, according to Google Maps, Kevalya Dham is a temple (which explains the Jainism navbox on the page), not a village, so different criteria apply. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia cannot have an article on any subject unless it has at least one third-party reliable source per WP:V. This applies whatever the subject matter of the article is. This article does not cite any sources and a Google search doesn't produce anything I would consider reliable. Hut 8.5 11:39, 24 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 01:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After much searching online, I conclude that Kevalya Dham seems to a village indeed (or perhaps a temple complex, but not one temple), but I could find nothing but crowd-sourced info. Rishabha#Famous temples dedicated to Rishabha, incidentally, mentions one of the temples there. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure it's not a village actually. The only places I could find that explicitly said it was a village were Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. The original version of the article (which was removed for copyvio issues) said nothing about it being a village. The claim was added some time later by an editor doing cleanup who seems to have assumed it was a village. Hut 8.5 10:45, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisano Central Mall Tacloban[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. We don't want a permanent stub on a subject that has gained no or only trivial mentions in reliable sources. Notability requires verifiable evidence. In short this article and other articles of similar kind should be deleted. Wikimapia, not Wikipedia, should be handling all this. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 18:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Normally malls aren't notable unless they get coverage from reliable sources. This one isn't the subject of enough coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:39, 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 01:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but only because Manila (and ultimately Cebu-)-centric sources are hard to get by. Other malls under Gaisano don't have articles anyway. –H T D 17:46, 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 redirect to So Fresh. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The Hits of Spring 2012[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. These seasonal So Fresh CDs have absolutely no coverage from any third-party reliable sources. A chart appearance and certification is not a reason for this topic to have a standalone article. Note: all articles about musical releases must meet the notability guidelines as outlined at WP:GNG. Till 08:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Delete. Fails all notability tests, with no hope of passing in the future without complete revision anyway. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to So Fresh. The same could probably be done for every one of the articles on individual volumes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:52, 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, Courcelles 01:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this and all other So Fresh albums to So Fresh. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:04, 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vbros art and develpment[edit]

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

Fails GNG and appears to be purely promotional. Odie5533 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable WP:COI as article created by an editor with a name very similar to the nickname of one of the principals of this firm. Pages with the proper spelling of the name "Vbros Art and Development" (also from that editor) were previously speedied twice: [25]. There is also a version of the same waiting at AfC. In any event, the references are poor and there is no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication how this passes WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, secondary in-depth sources. I only see primary ones. Seems more like a WP:PROMO piece. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for CSD under A7 - No credible claim of notability, clear COI of the creator, this is the equivalent of a LinkedIn page or similar profile. No substantial referencing. Previous CSDs days ago. Salvidrim! 08:51, 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 Two Eleven. Courcelles 00:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wish Your Love Away[edit]

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

This is a stub that is not notable per WP:NMUSIC, its only redeeming factor was that it charted but then upon checking the reference its clear that it didn't actually chart. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found a page that confirms the song did chart on the Billboard chart [26]. That said, notability aside, the song does not have enough material to warrant a standalone article and it should be merged to the artists article per WP:NSONG. Mkdw ^talk 02:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Two Eleven. Nowhere near enough for a standalone article. Can be covered adequately within the album article. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 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 merge to Two Eleven. Courcelles 00:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Know What You Have?[edit]

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

This is a stub that is not notable per WP:NMUSIC, its only redeeming factor was that it charted but then upon checking the reference its clear that it didn't actually chart. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was able to find the correct source that the song did chart to 61 on the Billboards, but that said, the article does not seem to have enough content to warrant a standalone article and should be merged to the artists article as per WP:NSONG. Mkdw ^talk 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Two Eleven. Nowhere near enough for a standalone article. Can be covered adequately within the album article. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 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.