< 5 December	7 December >

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

The result was delete. Very clear consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwanjetsu

[edit]

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

A contested prod.

Reason given on the prod: "Unreferenced. Essay or original research." Rotten regard 23:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and, most surprisingly, Google Books provided nothing and it seems there is a "World Taekwanjetsu Federation" with Ahmed Abu Othman as their founder and Master and I found YouTube videos written in Arabic and their Facebook page lists an Amman, Jordan location so it's probably based in the Middle East. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable original research. Bluntly speaking it appears to be a joke.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability whatsoever. The only thing I could find in a Google search of any significance was videos, and that's not enough for notability. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of YouTube videos and a website does not a notable martial art make. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is terrible. It's an unholy mixture or promotional material, original research, and non-encyclopedic content. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment This article makes me wonder if there should be an archive for articles that provide unintentional comedy. For anyone seriously into martial arts this article is hilarious. Also yeah, this is basically an advertisement for someone's McDojo, no-brainer deletion. Beansy (talk) 11:32, 10 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 Regular Show (season 1) . Yunshui 雲‍水 11:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Set Up the Chairs

[edit]

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

A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has no notability. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to Regular Show (season 1) serves the project far better than does outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems sensible here - not sure of the virtues of outright deletion when this is an obvious navigational term. Completely non-notable though. --Claritas § 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectas per above. —Theo polisme 22:12, 12 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 Regular Show (season 1). Bit of an IAR, here - I'll willingly concede that the consensus below is delete, but since redirects are cheap and the near-identical Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Set Up the Chairs has just been closed with a consensus of redirect I'm making this a redirect for the sake of consistency. Happy to overturn myself if there's dissent, though; just let me know (or go ahead and delete it if you're an admin). Yunshui 雲‍水 11:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death Punchies

[edit]

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

A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Adequately covered at Regular Show (season 1). Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 08:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable secondary sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A Redirect to Regular Show (season 1) serves the project far better than does outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of third-party coverage in reliable sources, fails general notability guidelines. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:48, 12 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mullage

[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 20:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a nice write-up in Billboard magazine [1], along with other coverage at SOHH [2], Allmusic [3], and HipHopDX [4]. I think enough material exists to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gongshow ^Talk 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough for an article from a Google search - there's probably more offline. Their single also made the top 20 of the Billboard Hot Rap Songs chart and also placed in the Mainstream R&B/Hip Hop chart.[5] --Michig (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How come no one adds these to the article? As of now the current article does not pass any guideline. STATic message me! 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the above sources to the article. I had to step away earlier for a bit. Also, an article that currently lacks sources does not mean it does not pass any guideline. Article topics are deemed non-notable when no sources exist. Gongshow ^Talk 23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 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 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetical astrology

[edit]

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

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same text, sourced to the same book, occurs word for word in Shiva Swarodaya / Swara Yoga. Whether that's because it was swiped right from the book verbatim or because Shridharvk (talk · contribs) is ‎Shrikanthv (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Vshrikanth (talk · contribs) or because this was a merger without correct attribution in the edit summary, I don't know, since I haven't read the book. Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another junk topic promoting one particular swamis cult teachings. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This text has been lifted. and it fails general notability. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 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 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Command EP

[edit]

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

An old piece of WP:CRYSTAL. When written, it was about a future event that was highly uncertain. Today, it's about a past event that certainly never happened. —Kww(talk) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - The references never mention the album's title and it seems this conflicts with Lil' Kim's fifth studio album. Google News and billboard.com provided nothing relevant for this alleged 2012 EP. I found a blog here which also never mentions the alleged EP's title. Honestly, this EP may have been set to happen but was never actually completed. An obscure genre like hip hop does not receive any significant and definitive coverage sometimes anyway. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources, this has no notability. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:46, 8 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 WITHDRAWN. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Ferreira

[edit]

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

Failed Prod. Article subject does not meet notability standards, including those listed under NSPORT Triathlon. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Due to some new information added and some rewrites on my own, I withdraw my AFD for this article. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a follower of US Triathlon, it is hard to not consider Amber Ferreira notable as she was one of the highest ranked US triathletes in the world last year at both the Ironman and 70.3 distance. Additionally she was second in the WORLD last year for snowshoe racing and 1st in the US in 2010. She holds the course record at several race venues throughout New England. I believe she also holds(or held) several Northeastern University distance records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.228.1 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think perhaps there needs to be rewording of the article. As a triathlete she does not qualify as notable see WP:NSPORT#Triathlon. Where she may fall under as notable, would be for her snowshoeing accomplishments, particularly given the recent references added. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 21:46, 6 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 with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Runar Søgaard

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (particular focus on WP:BIO1E). Couldn't turn up any further evidence on notability with a search although this isn't entirely surprising given my complete lack of knowledge of Norwegian. Move to Runar Søgaard incident may be an alternative but I don't think that's reasonable either. Rushyo ^Talk 19:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep - Søgaard appears to be famous in Norway and Sweden. Just had a browse through 'News' (link above) and had no trouble finding dozens of newspaper articles on him in every year from 2000 to 2010 (poss exc. of 2002) including in Norway's national Dagbladet (eg 14 Feb 2001, 10 May 2007, 3 Apr 2009) and Sweden's national Dagens Nyheter (eg 24 Sep 2010), so a priori he seems undoubtedly notable and pace BLP1E it is definitely an ongoing fame. The Norwegian papers call him 'Runar' which suggests he's a household name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big celebrity with long-lived fame, still the subject of newspaper stories this year, as well as many stories in the past. Islam controversy was just a small incident in his life. I added some more refs, but if you Google there's loads from Norwegian and Swedish media. (His page on no.wikipedia.org links to a Geocities fan page, but don't hold that against him.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There doesn't seem to be much on the Norwegian Wikipedia site: [6]. Are you sure he is notable? But then again there isn't too much on his ex-wife Carola Häggkvist on the Norwegian site but quite a lot in the English version. By the way, your added refs help. I tend towards 'keep' now. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Evidently there was plenty of evidence I was unable to consider. I'll bear that in mind in future! -Rushyo ^Talk 22:30, 10 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 19:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom (video game)

[edit]

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

I was unable to find significant coverage of this game in secondary reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Article was created by a person working for the developer as stated on the upload here. Odie5533 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. There is one independent source supplied in the article, but whether it is reliable or not we do require multiple independent sources to establish notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have suggested redirecting to Braintonik but it seems that article suffers from notability issues and I plan to see if it meets AfD criteria. As for this game, Google News provided nothing and, honestly, there are thousands of mobile games, not all of them receive significant attention especially if independent. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete as not passing WP:GNG - no reliable, secondary sources found. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Richard BB 15:00, 11 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 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tracx

[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this small company. All iformation about its possible importance is derived from it's own PR.. The only tsource that might "possibly" be independent is ref 5. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:CORP. I have also independently reviewed available references and in concurrence with DGGs statement, most of the references are re-publications of the subject company's own press releases. The aforementioned ref 5 is fairly brief and is not a great deal of coverage to justify notability for this corp. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company is not notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agreed that ref 5 constitutes a brief mention. There looks to be an independent review of the Tracx system in the book How to Measure Social Media: A Step-By-Step Guide to Developing and Assessing Social Media ROI and there is a patent application, but not much is mentioned about the company. At present it looks like the software may eventually become notable, but I see little evidence for notability of the company. Mark viking (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ConsumerLab.com

[edit]

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

The company/website does not appear to have notability on its own standing on available references. They're mentioned in news as a lab used to make a report for story about products, though they're not significant coverage on this company. The page as it stands now is dissemination of contents from company's own page exhibiting their findings used as promo material. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs a lot of work to be neutral and comprehensive, but the subject seems notable. Here's an entry in the Journal of the Medical Library Association, a MSNBC article focused on ConsumerLab.com's testing, another MSNBC article focused on ConsumerLab.com's testing, a NPR piece on ConsumerLab.com, ConsumerLab.com on WNYC, ConsumerLab.com on MSNBC, and ConsumerLab.com as the subject of an FTC letter. It also shows up in a lot of books (including a bunch of not trivial mentions). A lot of that seems to be coverage encouraged by PR, but the subject does seem to be notable. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are not news from MSNBC, but rather submissions from contributors.

The FTC letter is a public record of FTC's routine response to a complaint. A company filed a complaint against

ConsumerLab.com and that is the response FTC provided to them with a copy made available for public view.

WNYC is an interview with the company's president himself. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up the authors of those MSNBC articles, they are professional writers for various relatively reliable publications (Linda Carroll, Jacqueline Stenson), so those articles seem useful for this purpose instead of just being press releases. The WNYC feature can't be used as a reliable source, but it does indicate that WNYC recognized the subject as notable. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Dreamyshade says, the article needs a lot of work to be neutral and comprehensive, but the subject is decidedly notable. It is referred to in over 1000 publications on Google books. Even more tellingly, their product reviews have been cited as reliable sources in over 600 articles on Google Scholar. The most basic survey establishes this notability, and this AfD should not have been started. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed ConsumerLab.com Findings and am working on Dreamyshade's suggestions to only list "notable findings" that have third-party sources. Is there anything else you would recommend be added or eliminated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absander (talk • contribs)

The best place to ask questions is on the talk page of the article, with possibly an additional notice on the talk page of the relevant user if you haven't received a response on the article talk page. When adding "keep" votes in a deletion discussion, you need to explain why you believe the article shouldn't be deleted, informed by your understanding of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per what Dreamyshade and Epipelagic said. Moreover, the company has exposed several poor quality products and sellers. The article, as it stands, is also a function of all that was removed from it, some of it too eagerly. --IO Device (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 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. Keep and rename to Satanas (gang) per WP:COMMONNAME (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ese Te Ese

[edit]

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

Non-notable club lacking references of substance. Only one of the references refers to the gang, but there is nothing to tie the title of the article to the subject of the article. Perhaps a name change and more references are needed. reddogsix (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Satanas (gang) per WP:COMMONNAME. Sufficient sources exist, e.g. [7], [8] ^{(subscription needed)}, plus the sources present in the article (especially [9]). Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources exists, and that's from a very cursory search on my part. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i will be biased with this since i created the article. Yes i agree to rename it to Satanas (gang). Ese Te Ese aka satanas gang is very significant in LA. I could help to further expand the article. Keep --Wakowako (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. I found plenty of references to Satanas [10] but only a few, Spanish-language references to Ese Te Ese. The article could use some editing and better sources, but that is not a reason to delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, sources given pass WP:GNG/etc. —Theo polisme 22:13, 12 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 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kilmartin

[edit]

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

Article about a football player who has not played in a fully professional league; although there are some external links, there is nothing beyond routine coverage in order to meet WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 11 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. Consensus to keep in its present state. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Ontario – Street Addresses and Buildings

[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is just a list of street addresses that belong to notable buildings in Sudbury, Ontario. Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a travel guide. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My initial urge was to delete, but there might be merit in taking some of the information in this article and using it to create an article entitled list of notable buildings in Sudbury Ontario or something along those lines. Assuming that the buildings mentioned are actually notable in some format, of course. Much of the list seems to be sourced from 1-2 links. I know that you can sometimes have notability shown from one or two sources, but it's fairly rare unless you're sourcing a claim of an overwhelmingly notable award or something along those lines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I emphasize might, because some of the stuff looks somewhat dubious as notable landmarks or historical sites or the like.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be all for something titled List of notable buildings in Sudbury, Ontario that lists no street addresses (arranged by type of building rather than street) and in which one of the inclusion criteria is that every entry must have a Wikipedia article. But I've been in that city before, and I doubt there is much that such a list could contain. Sudbury may be the largest city in Northern Ontario, but by the standards of many other regions it's a small town. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that List of tallest buildings in Greater Sudbury already has a section on other "significant structures." And as I'm sure you know, "notable" should generally not be used in any list, article or category title. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article in its current state is useless anyway as there are no links to any other Wiki articles, and it doesn't seem like something that's relevant. I'd have no issue with the proposed new article though. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Qworty (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep as is. Delete, userfy to rewrite to comply with guidelines or redirect to List of tallest buildings in Greater Sudbury, if desired. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far too random a topic for a wikipedia page. Would be much better served as List of historic buildings in Greater Sudbury.Mattximus (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say Keep with the new name and format (tables); the page is now much more relevant. Mattximus (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved the article to List of historic buildings in Greater Sudbury per what seems to me to be Talk page consensus. I now believe it simply needs to be improved, not deleted. In retrospect a talk page discussion might have avoided the need to go to Afd at all, but sometimes this does provide the impetus for action. I personally have no problem if the list creator wants to retain the street address structure for the list, at least for now. I think we have a good start on listing notable historic structures in the city, so keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for any confusion but I've changed that to List of historic places in Greater Sudbury per the recently created Category:Lists of historic places in Ontario. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Keep per redirect created. Waiting for consensus of outstanding Delete !votes before withdrawing altogether. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. I should point out here that the article creator is being very reasonable about the whole thing and I do think we need a list of historic structures for Greater Sudbury, which was and is an important centre -- economically, historically and culturally -- for northern Ontario, and is rather underrepresented in Wikipedia, it seems to me. I have fond memories of once visiting for the Sudbury film fest, and would be happy to help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the original form in which this existed and was nominated, I would probably have agreed with the deletion, because it was a silly title which obscured the actual significance and validity of the list. However, per the (very smart) rescue efforts of Shawn in Montreal and others, I agree that it's now much more keepable — in fact, we routinely keep lists of designated historic properties in many cities around the world, including many places which are much smaller and less significant than Sudbury. Plus the list cites some very solid references, including at least two that I've quite regularly used as a source in other articles. And there's plenty of expansion opportunity here as well — just as a right off the top of my head example, one building on this list is going to be incorporated into the new Northern Ontario School of Architecture campus. So yeah, it's now a keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 2 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 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked at the old version of the article, and had it stayed like that I could certainly see an argument for deletion, no doubt. Although I would personally remove the external link from the lede, it seems to cover a subject that would be too detailed in the already-sufficiently-large Greater Sudbury, and has sufficient sourcing to establish some level of notability for the topic. - Sudo Ghost 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever it looked like before, it look good now. Well-referenced, not crufty, etc. Roodog2k (talk) 20:12, 7 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 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer cocktail attire

[edit]

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

No indication that this is a separate category of dress. (Spring cocktail attire, Autumn cocktail attire and Winter cocktail attire don't exist and aren't likely to). Article appears to be pure WP:OR / Essay. WP:NFT may apply. The article failed prod by Blanchardb shortly after creation when sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. This is just the opinion of a self-proclaimed fashion guru. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google News search gives a few results mentioning this as a distinct dress style (some paywalled) but most offer a only brief definition or snide comment[11][12]. There's a lot of people online asking "what is 'summer cocktail attire'?". This isn't just something somebody's made up, but at the same time I'm not sure you could say much about it, and there's also a lot of search results where it could be taken as a combination of "summer"+"cocktail attire" rather than a distinct term. Maybe redirect/merge to a more general article? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research and self promotion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here that is usable. At best, this is an ettempt to WP:Dictionary. I don't think there's anything worth merging into Cocktail dress due to lack of references. Mabalu (talk) 15:04, 11 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 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyrthos (the game)

[edit]

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

Unremarkable RPG, currently in development which implies that it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced except for the given link to the game's site. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't notable. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~: The game has been receiving news coverage in reliable sources over the past year as it is apparently in closed beta. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and videogame-wikify. The coverage on Rock, Paper, Shotgun, as well as these from Game Insider [19], Gamers Only [20], Gameranx [21], and even Gamasutra [22] are way enough to showcase the notability of the title. Also, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply for games that are currently in development, but for those who are not yet in development. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GamaSutra article is a press release, the Gameranx and Gamers Only do not appear reliable, but the Game Insider article does appear reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases count as reliable if published by Gamasutra :) The other two, I have my doubts, but they count for the coverage thing... — Ṟ Ṉ™ 18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from The Indie Games Magazine' [23][24]. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources Odie5533 provided show notability for the article and with those sources it meets the general notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 10:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now meets WP:Notability (video games). —Theo polisme 22:17, 12 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 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebWiz@rd

[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article history shows nothing but a couple of WebWiz@rd WP:SPA advertising-only accounts. no sources out there but PR and trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Nothing more than using Wikipedia for Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, SPA/promotional, and lacking reliable sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 05:00, 12 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Werkdiscs

[edit]

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

I am bringing this article about a record label based on simple WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, at least one of the artists claimed to be released on that label is now PRODed as not meeting WP:BAND. While the person who created the label might be a notable artist, the label itself is not. §FreeRangeFrog 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found it hard to believe that a label with releases by notable artists (e.g. Actress, Zomby, Lone) would fail our criteria for inclusion, so I googled it. There isn't much independent coverage of the label itself (more of its artists and/or founder, as the nom suggests), so I can understand why it's been brought here for discussion. There is some coverage though: there's a fairly decent feature article here (which is already included in the article) from XLR8R, as well as some news coverage from Fact Magazine. The same news story appears here, covered by The Quietus, and here, where Clash describe the label's back catalogue as "slim but influential". The label was also described by Allmusic as "one of the most revered dance labels". That same news story was reported in lots of other places ([25][26][27]), if that makes any difference. Admittedly, that doesn't add up to much, but I think it might be just enough to keep. — sparklism ^hey! 12:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sparklism. also more coverage exists [28] treating of the label in some depth [29][30] 86.44.25.145 (talk) 02:08, 8 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 with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arctoperlaria

[edit]

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

Fails notability. No policy states that each and every obscure taxon on Earth should have its own article on Wikipedia. Cavisson (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by convention, cited taxa (and this one is) are deemed notable, just like places. Wikipedia has a function as index of taxa and as gazetteer, and we normally don't try to argue with it. As it happens, there are 5 references in the article, but in general even if there's only the one that originally defined the taxon, that's enough. The stoneflies are an important group, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The five references prove that the suborder exists, but not that it's notable. Existence is not tantamount to encyclopaedic notability.--Cavisson (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly don't delete things for being "obscure", a notion that is nowhere in deletion policy. That's what readers often come to an encyclopaedia for, to look up obscure stuff that they don't know about. Uncle G (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we do delete things for being non notable, which is what this AfD is all about.--Cavisson (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap PianoDan (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each and every taxon in earth should have an article in WP. By the very definition of what is an accepted taxon, they all have reliable sources; ever since 1753, you can't have a taxon without a valid publication. There's no need for a convention here--the GNG by itself does very nicely. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are a red herring here, because the issue is notability, not verifiability. There's no reason why this suborder should have its own, standalone article as opposed to having a dedicated section in the article Plecoptera.--Cavisson (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there's good reason. WP considers taxa individually notable, from kingdom right down to species level. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proof for this claim.--Cavisson (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for example. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - taxa are inherently notable. With access to a university library and the time it would be possible to write a FA on the topic. Nominator has not given any justification for his dismissal of the sources provided. --Claritas § 17:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, please read above. The sources provided only show that the taxon exists, not that it is notable (not the same thing).--Cavisson (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I disagree with the "taxa are inherently notable" paradigm, and have the scars to prove it, this taxon seems to me to be notable, for example, the coverage in [31] and [32] is significant enough to pass WP:GNG for me. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I withdraw this AfD, seeing that the consensus is to conflate verifiability and notability as if they were one and the same.--Cavisson (talk) 13:17, 11 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 Snow keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 22:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nesbitt (American football)

[edit]

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

An ex-college football player and later a coach. There are several brief one-line mentions about his resignation as coach, but nowhere near enough coverage to meet WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, I would recommend, that in the future you would discuss a possible nomination in the talk page of the article before putting this time limit on discussion here. Secondly, have you done your research here? Houston Chronicle and Washington Times sure seem like independent coverage. These are not "one-line mentions", but rather full articles about this person, so I discount your premise. Brian Reading (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I completely disagree. I don't know where you're seeing 'full articles'. There's a single short paragraph about Nesbitt in the Houston Chronicle and one line in the Washington Times saying "Houston offensive coordinator Mike Nesbitt has resigned after the Cougars’ 30-13 season-opening loss to Texas State." As I say, not enough to describe him as widely known. Sionk (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my comment below. There are plenty of valid sources. Brian Reading (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Brian Reading. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom mentions, the citations are nothing but one-liners of the routine-type coverage. There is no significant coverage of this person to satisfy the demands of GNG. Ravendrop 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral A lot of sources have been added, but the majority still seem to be local and/or routine coverage only. Not having an extensive enough knowledge of the demands of notability for the football project I can say that, in my mind, it is no longer a clear delete (as it was when I first voted) but nor is it a clear keep. I would be fine either way if this article is kept or deleted, and thus my new, neutral vote. Ravendrop 02:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm afraid I have to agree. Normally assistant coaches do not qualify for notability, junior college assistant coaches would be even less likely to. And I don't see any measure to change that stance at this time. The essay at WP:CFBCOACH may be helpful. Please note that the subject may achieve notability in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a former Division I FBS assistant coach, not strictly a junior college coach. I should also note that he is a former NFL player. Brian Reading (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, he never played a down in a regular season NFL game. Check Pro-Football-Reference.com. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, let's establish the Wikipedia policy outlines for discussing this subject. First, there is no specific notability guideline (SNG) that grants a presumption of notability to American college football coaches; neither WP:NSPORTS nor WP:NCOLLATH do so. WP:WikiProject College football, by consensus, supports a presumption of notability for all Division I college football head coaches, but not for assistant coaches. In the absence of an applicable SNG, a subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, which requires that a subject must receive substantial coverage in multiple, independent, published, reliable sources per WP:RS. That means team profiles, school newspapers, media guides, etc., while they may be reliable sources, are not independent sources. Furthermore, trivial or routine coverage should be discounted for purposes of determining notability per WP:ROUTINE. For those editors who believe that this article should be kept, it's now time to start linking to those reliable sources they believe demonstrate this subject's notability. The Washington Times article linked in the Wikipedia article is clearly trivial; the Houston Chronicle article while not trivial, is a very slender, single thread on which to hang the subject's notability. What else do you editors who support keeping this article have? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping I replaced the "Oppose" comments with the word "Keep" to more accurately reflect how WP:AFD functions. Note that it does not change the editor's position or argument in any way, it just makes it easier to flow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sigh. Shouldn't this be the first step for anyone recommending deletion?

There are plenty more sources out there if one takes the effort to go look. Brian Reading (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, in fairness to those who previously voted "delete," the sources previously included in the article and prior to your search were far from adequate to support notability per GNG guidelines, and, as I am sure you know, the burden rests on those who support the "keep" position. Thank you for taking the time to do the search; with the sources added by you and Cbl, the article is vastly improved and its subject clearly notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get a bit of perspective on this please. Three of those sources are nothing more than brief mentions in relation to his resignation. The Houston Chronicle article gives a reasonable amount of information about Nesbitt. The Alberquerque Journal gives a small amount too. One CBS source is clearly detailed routine sports coverage about playing strategy (the other CBS source I can't open). Well done to Brian Reading for doing some digging, but let's not over-egg the omelette. This was a good faith nomination. Sionk (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is questioning that you were acting in good faith. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked at this and found it hard to believe that an offensive coordinator at a Division I FBS school (and at at a school in one of the country's biggest media markets) would not have enough press coverage to pass WP:GNG. So I did some searches and found dozens of stories about him. I've added many of them to the article. There are more out there. Looks like plenty IMO to satisfy WP:GNG. I'd ask those who previously voted "Delete" to give this a second look. Cbl62 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:GNG does the trick, Nesbitt appears to also satisfy prong 3 of WP:NCOLLATH: "Gained national media attention as an individual ..." Here, there are articles written about Nesbitt in such major national media outlets as ESPN, The Sporting News, here at Yahoo Sports, here at NBC Sports, and here at CBS Sports. Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to disagree with some of the aforementioned delete !votes; I think that there are sufficient sources, specifically these: [33] [34] [35] [36] and probably [37] and [38] if I had a High Beam account. I'll stipulate that this is a borderline case and further stipulate that only WP:GNG applies, not WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NSPORTS, but I think it passes GNG. Go Phightins! 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear keep per additional substantive sources found by Cbl62 and Brianreading. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modified my opinion with due to new info. I think this is another example of how a delete tag can improve an article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic case of AfD improving an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changed position. Nice job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With the vote count now snowballing at 8-0 in favor of keeping, would the nominator consider withdrawing the nom so this can be closed? Cbl62 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I hadn't !voted keep already, I'd non-admin close it as keep. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, there is a reasonable article in the Houston Chronicle and possible in-depth coverage in the Alberquerque Journal (subscription required). The remainder are the briefest of mentions or 'routine' sports coverage. You must admit, the three national media "articles written about" Nesbitt you identified are the briefest of mentions. The case, in my view, is still borderline, so I'll let the crowd decide. Sionk (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Albuquerque Journal articles don't appear to be subscription to me. You simply need to answer the marketing question that pops-up. It's equivalent to an advertisement in that you simply have to dismiss it to read the article. Also, I'll have to disagree that these are mostly routine coverage or trivial mentions. Have you checked out all 44 of the sources listed on the article now? Brian Reading (talk) 16:20, 12 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. --BDD (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Sri Siddhartha Medical College

[edit]

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

No attempt made to demonstrate the notability of the college. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what attempts have you made? Isn't this supposed to be a collaborative project, where we help each other out rather than mark each other's work? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, it is a medical school. Even high schools have inherent notability. So, this full-fledged medical school is notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Per WP:SCHOOL, WP:ORG applies to schools as well: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable" and this is also not a high school (high schools are not exempt from notability requirements either). Articles require third-party reliable sources, even schools. This article does not have that kind of coverage. - Sudo Ghost 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Times of India not a third party? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only one I see; articles require multiple reliable third-party sources. - Sudo Ghost 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an Indian college, you have to dig to find sources. But The Times of India is the highest circulation English language newspaper in the world, that's something by itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added an entry on this medical college from Medical Council of India website. This, and the Times of India article, prove that the medical college exists. It is not a hoax. This is a medical college whose existence is proven. As a tertiary center of education, it is notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Removing delete per Voceditenore's comment below. - Sudo Ghost 18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no issue. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please expand upon that a little bit? Not seeing an issue isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. The lack of reliable sources isn't an issue? The fact that schools are specifically noted to fall under WP:ORG, which this one fails, isn't an issue? - Sudo Ghost 10:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All colleges and universities and other institutions of higher education that grant degrees & have a real provable existence have consistently been held to be notable--there are always sources, even if we cannot find them in 7 days for some geographic areas. . This includes free standing medical schools. In any case, the Times of India is a sufficient source; it is normally the best we have for the country, and if we didn't count it, we'd not have many articles on the area. "Multiple " is not an absolute requirement--it depends on the quality of the source and the nature of the subject. For totally uncontroversial topics like this about things that generally are expected to be notable, a single article in an internationally known newspaper is fully sufficient--in any country. when it comes to material such as internet memes and small businesses and popular entertainers, most of which are definitely not notable, then we have more stringent requirements because we have nothing to go by except the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified tertiary education institutions are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they aren't; independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are, but even then the consensus on Wikipedia is that a school is not notable just because it is a school. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable through third-party sources in some manner; this one is not. Without proper sources, this article fails WP:ORG, which schools are required to meet. - SudoGhost 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to be mistaking Wikipedia for a bureaucracy. Nothing is required to meet anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's rather telling when you resort to citing WP:BURO simply because it's pointed out that there are notability requirements; if it's not required to meet the notability requirements then its not required to have an article either, because lets face it, keeping an article just because "others exist and Wikipedia keeps school articles" is part of the bureaucracy: if it's inconvenient for us then it's part of the bureaucracy, right? The fact that this is a college (not a high school) does not mean it is notable just because it exists, nothing is notable just because it exists, notability must be demonstrated, that's not bureaucracy, that's common sense. - Sudo Ghost 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way this is going to be deleted, there's nothing to get crazy about. The de facto "rule" that all verifiable high schools get kept at AfD would apply with even more force to a college. This is a valid verifiable 24 year old medical school.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such "rule" though, the only consensus I've been able to find concerning schools is that WP:ORG applies, which this one fails considerably. WP:ITEXISTS is not, and will never be, a valid reason to keep an article, it doesn't matter what the subject is. If this were an article about a construction company, these "the company is real, we keep all kinds of company articles" arguments wouldn't hold any weight whatsoever; that doesn't change just because it's some other subject. There is no consensus that schools just are, the general consensus is that they also have to meet WP:ORG. - Sudo Ghost 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, don't listen to me or 10 years of AfD history, if you wish.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The box above the editing window says "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements" When what you're saying is textbook WP:ATA and sounds exactly like something a new editor would say when they came to Wikipedia specifically to "vote" to keep an article they were a fan of, I'm inclined to give more credibility to guidelines that have been written and represent community consensus than editors saying WP:ITEXISTS and alluding to some "schools are automatically notable" guideline that doesn't exist. There is a critical difference between "Schools are almost always kept because schools are almost always notable" and "schools are always kept". - Sudo Ghost 14:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I cited WP:BURO because despite your repetitive claims to the contrary, there are no notability requirements. There are notability guidelines, which are not set in stone, which is why we have AfDs (have you ever stopped to think why we bother, if articles are slavishly required to meet the guidelines?). Consensus has long been that secondary and tertiary educational institutions are notable as long as their existence can be verified. You can argue that WP:IDONTLIKEIT until you're blue in the face (as others have done), but this won't change that consensus or the fact that this AfD is well on its way to being another keep result. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody suggested that the guidelines are set in stone, but articles must be notable in some way. I appreciate that you misused WP:IDONTLIKEIT (did you even read that?) while simultaneously using WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the weight of your argument leaves much to be desired; it would help if you would point out a single thing that reinforced your position, instead of alluding to things that don't exist. If there were some consensus that schools were automatically notable, don't you think someone would have written that down somewhere? Instead, the only thing that is written on the matter is that schools are typically notable, but still follow WP:ORG. - Sudo Ghost 14:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are truly obsessed with things being written down aren't we? Never mind. Consensus doesn't have to be written down to be consensus and it won't be changed by you continually repeating your lone "delete" or dismissing others' opinions as worthless because they differ from yours. This article will be kept. And let's face it, if it was about a medical college in the UK or USA it would not in a million years even have been nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally how a consensus works, yes, it's written on Wikipedia somewhere. If it isn't, there's no such consensus, that's kind of the definition of what a consensus is. Since this is an AfD, please read the top of the editing box, the part about "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements", and provide something to back up your assertion of "schools are automatically notable"; opinions are only "worthless" (thank you for putting that word in my mouth) when they are vague assertions to something that doesn't exist, when what is written on the subject says otherwise. It seems you're misinterpreting "schools are almost always notable" and somehow turning it into "schools are always notable", if that's true, show where this has been said, if you can't, then your argument has very little weight in this discussion, because it's not accurate. Alluding to some consensus that you won't provide makes it hard to know what it says, but I'm pretty sure "schools are always notable" isn't a consensus, and asserting that this consensus is somehow set in stone and we must blindly follow it is not in keeping with your concerns of bureaucracy, especially where there are many guidelines that contradict this "consensus that exists even though it's not actually on Wikipedia anywhere". - Sudo Ghost 15:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you misunderstand. Consensus is built up over time, in this case in many, many AfDs. It doesn't have to be written in a single place by a single editor that "this is a consensus". That would be defeating the object of it being a consensus! WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." And as to your snide "welcome to Wikipedia" edit summary, you may like to check out my profile! I've had enough of arguing with you. Wait for the AfD outcome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't have to be written in a single place by a single editor that "this is a consensus"" isn't anything that anyone is contesting, but surely there's some evidence of it existing? If not, then I'd trust the community consensus on the matter over your misinterpretation of a vague consensus that you can't actually show any evidence of, especially when what you're saying is contracticted by just about every relevant guideline or policy. As for the "welcome to Wikipedia" edit summary, that was a reference to fact that you don't think a consensus has to be written on Wikipedia? If there's no evidence of a consensus, then you can't allude to it and be taken seriously, that suggests a serious misunderstanding of what a consensus is, and no I'm not suggesting that an uninvolved admin must "close" a discussion and say "yep, this is a consensus", but if you're so keen on citing this mysterious consensus that seems to override every relevant policy or guideline and everything else even when Wikipedia policy says that such a consensus wouldn't override a larger community consensus, it's generally a good idea to at least show that it exists on some level (verifiability on Wikipedia shouldn't be that strange of a concept). I'm also not interested in "checking out your profile", your unsupported statements here speak for themselves, it doesn't matter who makes unsupported assertions, they're still very poor arguments. - Sudo Ghost 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol at the extensive back and forth here. Verifiability of course, is not at issue here. Was doing a a little searching and can find no precedent for a verifiable 20+ year college article ever being deleted. See e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehradun Institute of Technology (February 2012) (worthwhile closing statement summarizing things), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaikalamatha College (August 2012) (unanimous keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology (July 2012), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badruka College (September 2009). It appears there were a number of college AfDs around 2005 when notability precedents were still unclear, but universally they were kept, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/College_of_the_Sequoias (March 2005), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Community College (June 2005), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roanoke Bible College (August 2005), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. George's College (September 2005).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about verifiability was concerning this magical consensus that can't actually be shown; if you're going to allude to a consensus, it would help to show it existing. "Precedent" also has zero weight in any discussion, for a number of reasons, but also because Wikipedia does not work on precedent on any level. The AfDs are fine in their own discussions, because apparently nobody disagreed with what was being said, but that's not the case here. If you want consensus to reflect that schools are "automatically notable", then discuss it at the relevant guideline and get an actual consensus and have something reflect what you're saying; until then it's your opinion against what policies and guidelines say on the matter, and I'll give fleshed out community consensus more credence than vague assertions to a local consensus somehow being except from WP:CONLIMITED any day. - Sudo Ghost 16:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the clear long-standing consensus that has led to no article about a verifiable high school or higher education institution being deleted at AfD in the last few years. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus, that apparently is exempt from changing and overrides things that other consensuses aren't able to? WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. - Sudo Ghost 15:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said in my comment exactly where this consensus is. I have no wish to engage in further discussion about this because you are obviously unwilling to actually listen to anything that is being explained to you. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see where you said "exactly where this consensus is", only that it was, and the fact that "no article about a verifiable high school or higher education institution being deleted at AfD in the last few years" means absolutely nothing since consensus can change, especially a vague and unclear consensus, the details of which change depending on the time of day and who you ask. What is being "explained to me" is that colleges don't have to follow any policy or guideline and "that's just the way it is", despite the fact that both what is written on the matter of schools and Wikipedia policy on the matter both say otherwise. - Sudo Ghost 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous various consensus on educational institutes.
SudoGhost, I haven't read all the arguments put by editors in previous AfDs which are referred to here by others as long-stand consensus and also the one i refer to in my keep comment. But when i think on why had such a consensus been formed, the answer that comes to me is that Wikipedia is basically an encyclopedia. All villages are here to stay as they are communities of people, whether small or big or of any type of people. Similarly, educational institutes, small or big, famous or not, having 50 commons students or pouring out Marie Pierre Curies are basically institutes that impart education to people, and that is notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has to be established, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia of notable topics, not everything that exists; that something merely exists is insufficient for a Wikipedia article, it has to matter, and reliable sources show that something matters. Schools are almost always kept because it's happens to be that reliable sources almost always can be given to show notability, but this doesn't turn into "any school is automatically notable". From what I can tell, the "consensus" was at one point that "any school is notable", and that was that. Then the consensus changed, that notability had to be shown, and for that reason most articles on primary schools were deleted, since there were no sources. Then it became "most high schools and colleges are notable, since there are sources for them", from what I'm seeing that is the consensus, not "all high schools and colleges are notable, just because that's what they are". The sources make the notability, that doesn't change for a college just because of some arbitrary designation of "educational business" as opposed to "construction business" or "marketing business", there no consensus that this line of "what the business does" somehow throws all consensus on the matter of notability out the window. If that were the case, then primary schools would be kept as well, but the only thing that does address how the notability of schools is handled specifically points out that the notability guidelines apply to schools as well, and although they are almost always notable, that doesn't mean they are all notable. If the "long-standing consensus" was, as is being suggested, that schools don't have to show notability, why is everything I can find on the subject saying otherwise? - Sudo Ghost 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

So it appears that a few editors believe that there is this "consensus" that they can't actually find, that nullifies actual Wikipedia consensus. There is this line of thought that schools are inherently notable, and thus automatically must be kept on that basis alone. This is, however, contrary to Wikipedia consensus. Even if there were such a consensus, WP:CONLIMITED says that "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." So pointing to a few previous AfDs about some other schools isn't much of an argument, especially since consensus can change. So what is the larger consensus? WP:ORG specifically mentions schools as a type of organization that falls under its guidelines, and even addresses this "schools are inherently notable" argument by noting in WP:ORGSIG that "no company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." So it appears that if this "long-standing consensus" did exist, consensus most certainly has changed, since the relevant Wikipedia pages for schools contradict this line of logic. Given that the AfD group notice says that "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements", I think a better reason should be given than "keep because it's a school" or "we have a consensus to keep schools", since relevant guidelines specifically say otherwise. - Sudo Ghost 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this wall of text, Sudo, you're not helping your argument. Let the AfD play out, don't assail every commenter. If you can find a similar college ever ever ever deleted at AfD, I would be interested to know for my archives. You should spend a few hours reviewing every Afd and discussion I cited at User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs if you want to fully understand the context.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "If you can find a similar college ever ever ever deleted at AfD" is the best argument you could make, since WP:ORGSIG says that does not matter. If you can cite a actual reason to keep the article I'll gladly shut up, but I've explained above why "keep because it's a school" is a very poor argument to give, since there is absolutely nothing that supports that argument on any level, as is in fact contradicted by the relevant guidelines. While I appreciate that you believe a wall of text doesn't help my argument (understandable), failing to give a valid reason isn't helping yours, and asserting that "schools don't have to be notable, that's just how it is stop questioning it" is even worse. - Sudo Ghost 18:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you read all those AfDs and discussions about the notability of schools I just cited, which go back to 2003? If not, I demand you post no further in this discussion until you do.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent is right! Stop hounding all commenters. Get a job! Instead of making this AfD your blog had you googled about the subject you would have come to know that the college has produced gold medalists at least for once and at least one professor's research work had been noted internationally. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks aren't necessary, and if a single person can point out a single guideline or policy that supports keeping the article I'd happy accept that, but as it stands I'm amazed that quite a few editors truly believe that "schools are automatically notable" is a valid reason to keep an article, when everything on Wikipedia is saying otherwise. Professors doing research comes nowhere near creating notability for the organization. Schools are not automatically notable, it doesn't matter how many editors claim that, it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing against established community consensus. If there is a valid reason to keep the article, I'd love to hear it because I don't want the article to be deleted just because a few editors erroneously believed that WP:ITEXISTS is enough to keep an article, but if that's the only reasoning you can give, then it apparently doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above comments, and per sourcing available which verifies existence of school and reports on it, including the decent sized Times of India piece on its history.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't give it significant coverage per WP:ORG, which requires sources, not a single puffery piece. - Sudo Ghost 18:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now the judge and jury of the largest English language paper in the world? Why don't you look up the archives of Vijaya Karnataka, they also have covered this institution.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters; an article about a person isn't significant coverage for this article, since the Times of India article only mentions this subject once, in passing, which is a trivial mention. A single trivial mention does not warrant an article and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:ORG. - Sudo Ghost 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verified degree-awarding medical college. Long-established that such tertiary institutions are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGSIG says otherwise; it merely existing is insufficient per the existing community consensus. Do you have any reason other than an unsupported statement? - Sudo Ghost 02:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about some small villages and towns which might not be notable but they still exist on wikipedia. This is a degree awarding college and sources are provided of its existence. Its not some imaginary college also it is not required that the college should produce a Hargobind Khorana to become notable. --sarvajna (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To prevent from going through this time and time again, lets just change the Notability guideline for organizations to reflect what consensus has always been, that all colleges are notable. Please join the strawpoll to gauge consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Suggested_guideline_addition Dream Focus 14:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a keep argument for this article? The current guidelines say that this article is not notable by default. Trying to change that is good, but until then the standing consensus says otherwise. - Sudo Ghost 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standing consensus says all colleges are notable. Just no one bothered to change that guideline to represent that yet. Thus the problem is there, not here. Dream Focus 19:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone would "forget" to change something like that, and the discussion you opened suggests that no, not only was not the standing consensus, it is unlikely to become so. The standing consensus says that schools are not exempt from notability requirements. - Sudo Ghost 19:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am utterly opposed to the idea that any topic is inherently notable (including schools). Yes, I would agree that there is a strong presumption that schools are notable (because it is highly likely that sources exist), but the thing about presumptions of notability is that there are rare exceptions. There will be rare cases when a specific school does not live up to the general presumption. So... The question we must ask here in this AFD is: Is (Sri Siddhartha Medical College) one of those rare exceptions? A quick google/google news search tells me it is not. There are more than enough sources that can be used to establish that the subject is notable. That none of these sources are currently used in the article is a flaw with the article (one that needs to be fixed)... but because they could be used, the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUST and WP:GHITS are not reasons to keep an article any more than "it's automatically notable". If there are sources, show them; that google returns hits means absolutely nothing for the notability of an article. - Sudo Ghost 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I realize I got a little too talky here about notability, so I opened a discussion at the guideline's talk page to keep it in a relevant place. However, this article still fails WP:ORG, and nobody has even attempted to explain a guideline or policy-based reason for keeping the article, and apparently I'm not the only one that is confused by this "consensus" that schools are automatically notable, Jimbo says there is no such consensus and doesn't seem to think these articles are exempt from notability, since he can't find this elusive consensus either, but what we can find are guidelines and policies saying that no, schools are not inherently notable, and this one fails to meet the relevant ones. I'll shut up about it, but every single policy, guideline, essay, and consensus that I can find says that "this organization exists exists, so we automatically keep it" has no standing in an AfD discussion. - Sudo Ghost 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re "However, this article still fails WP:ORG" - How so? A quick Google news search turns up several sources that can be used to support notability, per WP:ORG.

I think you may have a misunderstanding about our notability guidelines... WP:ORG (and our other notability guidelines) isn't about the current state of an article... it's about the article's topic. The fact that sources are not currently cited in an article is a flaw, but one that that can easily be fixed if the sources exist. Notability is not determined by whether the article currently contains the required sourcing... it is determined by whether the required sources exist. In this case they do. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at Google, there aren't any reliable sources there that could establish notability. WP:ORG doesn't say "Alluding to some Google search makes an article notable as well." Notability has to be shown, not alluded to without actually showing it. - Sudo Ghost 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No... Deletion/retention is not dependent on whether notability is shown... but whether it can be shown. In this case it can be... for example: [This Times of India article can be used to establish notability (I will go now and add it to the article). Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed, but (1) that source is already in the article, (2) has already been discussed in this AfD, and (3) is a trivial mention of the school in passing while discussing a person. That does nothing to establish the notability for the article's subject. - Sudo Ghost 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The times article is not "trivial", a few paragraphs of it discuss the school, though they don't keep repeating the name. It indeed does count towards establishing notability and if you claim it does not one more time I will have you deleted from wikipedia yourself. Thank you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The college is mentioned once, in passing, and there's nothing useful to extract from the mention. It then immediately goes on to discuss individuals and their political aspects. That is the very definition of trivial coverage. - Sudo Ghost 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) Without enough secondary sources, an article will invariably be written using more primary sources. For an organization, this will likely keep an article as a permanent stub, or turn it into a giant piece of advertising. If none of the media thinks it's worth spending ink to write about the school, then I don't think it should be given a standalone article. It could instead be mentioned in a list of medical schools in Karnataka. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does get press coverage. I don't understand what it all means, but there are many articles talking about school slots, etc., not to mention Kannada language cites which I have no idea what they are saying.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're now claiming that "it does get press coverage", it might help to show that, instead of yet again alluding to something. - Sudo Ghost 17:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from the long-standing consensus on the notability of tertiary institutions (with which I agree), there is sufficient coverage. In addition to the 2 Times of India articles currently in the references, I found:

The Hindu - 2007 article on the college's silver jubilee
The Hindu - 2006 article on "Body donation, a unique concept introduced by Siddhartha Medical College" (obviously unique to its region, not in the world at large, but still...)
Times of India - 2002 article on medical education units to be set up at Siddhartha Medical College "to acquaint doctors working in rural areas with the latest advances in medical technology"

The article needs substantial copyediting of course, but that's not relevant here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those are all extremely significant coverage, but they certainly look sufficient enough for a stub at the very least. I'm kind of amazed; you've certainly done more than any other editor has done. There are 11 other keep votes, and you're the only one that's actually tried to present some logical and guideline-based reason to keep the article. It's a shame that it took this long for a single person to do that (I'm counting myself here as well) instead of pulling rationales straight out of WP:ATA, but if you didn't have my respect before, you certainly have it now. - Sudo Ghost 18:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is those Google search links at the top of AFDs miss a lot. I found those by simply removing "Sri" from the search term. The college is often simply called "Siddhartha Medical College". From the 2 Times of India references in the article, I suspect there may be a lot more coverage about its founding in 1989 (apparently a bit of a brouhaha), but articles going that far back aren't available online and would need a trip to the library. Voceditenore (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there was coverage in 1989, but please note that I think the 3 sources above refer to Siddhartha Medical College in Vijayawada, not Sri Siddhartha Medical College in Tumkur (near Bangalore. There are indeed press references to the Tumkur facility dropping the "Sri" sometimes, and though this is even more confusing, e.g., [39], I say welcome to the joy and challenge of editing India-related articles, where some of the very most popular articles on Wikipedia are about Indian actors and movies you've never heard of, and they are badly cited.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that maybe that the college just has multiple locations, which would explain the discrepancy? - Sudo Ghost 21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are definitely different, see Siddhartha Medical College.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether you can get it translated or not there is enough coverage about this college in Kannada language news paper, for example news about successfull hip joint replacement and some awareness about mental health at the college I could find few more like KPCC [40] president owning this college. --sarvajna (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obvious systematic bias against Indian topics here. Tertiary educational institutions will always be notable. Just look for some local sources. Claritas § 23:26, 12 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. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Siddhartha University

[edit]

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

Almost empty article. No attempt made to demonstrate the notability of the university. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sorry but a deemed university is per se notable. --Soman (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Confirmed university.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate University, in fact they teach Medicine there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legitimate tertiary center of education, with several departments. Notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Almost Empty Article' is not a valid reason for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - A deemed university whose legal and physical existence can be verified should be an obvious keep. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What were you thinking? Its Keep. Notable per topic itself. I wanted to close this AfD under Appropriate closures as AfDs are not for filling up the "almost empty" articles. (I would have thought the nominating Admin would know that.) But am still keeping it open so they don't have any doubts about a University's notability. And in meanwhile someone would probably clean it also. And what happened with Wikipedia-is-a-collaborative-project thing? Please notify WT:IN or concerned WikiProject by leaving a note and not raising AfD in case you come across any such "almost empty" articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:44, 8 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 22:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology

[edit]

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

Almost empty article. No attempt made to demonstrate the notability of the institute. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sorry but if this is their library, I'd say notability is quite well established. --Soman (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Almost Empty Article' is not a valid reason for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified tertiary education institutions are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and I don't find it empty.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per this. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:46, 11 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 Procedural non-admin close A deletion discussion already exists under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization & Environment (journal) and as I believe that this is a deletion discussion for the redirect rather than the article for the journal, the deletion discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization & Environment (journal)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reason for this article to continue to exist - it is a redirect page only; no links. Thanks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization & Environment (journal). It's extremely important to know whether you are nominating the redirect or the article. If you are nominating the redirect then you must go through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Redirects are not deleted at AfD. That is done through an entirely different process and opening a second deletion discussion for the same redirect is not the correct way to go about it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:10, 6 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 Procedural non-admin close Wrong deletion forum. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization & Environment (journal)

[edit]

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

No reason for this article (now only a redirect) to continue to exist DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are you suggesting that the article Organization & Environment be deleted or just the redirect Organization & Environment (journal)? Because if it's just the redirect then that should take place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the redirect page. Thanks for sending me in the right direction! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:13, 6 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 Non-admin procedural close. Wrong forum, needs to go to WP:RfD Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

[edit]

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

empty article for a scientific journal - better as a redlink to encourage development of the article. thanks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the other AfD noms.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:17, 6 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 22:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jain rituals and festivals

[edit]

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

The article has been unreferenced since last 4-5 years. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I have just added a reference (it was easy). The ground for deletion is thus removed and so the discussion is moot. Warden (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article seems to repeat what is already written about in other articles, for example Jainism. Jainism provides a good navigational aid to other sources. For example the customs, practises and festivals all have comprehensive articles themselves. Why combine rituals and festivals in a separate article when they are different beasts? I'm erring towards 'Delete' on this one. It's not a 'Speedy keep'. Sionk (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is notable subject as it tells about different rituals and festival related to Jainism in detail and may expand in future. Problem of citation can easily be resolved by adding them as many references are available. --Nizil (talk) 10:47, 12 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. --BDD (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dick Assman

[edit]

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

The article is amusing. Sadly, the person is notable only for one event WP:BIO1E. Harsh (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article is not amusing - I didn't even crack a smile. And the person is not notable for one event; they are notable for their name which has been celebrated by multiple entertainers. The nomination therefore seems quite false. Warden (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There doesn't seem to be a speedy keep reason here. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i suspect he meant "Strong". Rusty Kuntz, Harry Baals, and Dick Assman do not have any special rule that applies to them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SK reason is 2.e — that the nomination is "so erroneous" that it should be dismissed immediately rather than wasting our time for seven days. Warden (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, "so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". It is clear to me that the good faith nominator did read the article in question. You'd have done better to adopt Milowent's defense. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean what I say and I say what I mean. WP:SK indicates that a nomination may be erroneous in a variety of ways. In this case, it appears that the nominator hasn't read or understood WP:BIO1E just as it seems that SummerPhD hasn't properly read or understood WP:SK. See RTFM. Warden (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may indeed mean what you say, but that is not related to whether or not you are correct. Your interpretation of SK 2.e and BIO1E are not the only ones. You seem to be of the opinion that "has not even read the article in question, looked at the file license at all, etc." covers your belief that the nominator's interpretation of BIO1E is incorrect. "Speedy keep" is not a catch-all for bios that you just want to keep because you like it. While it is obvious that their interpretation differs from yours, you haven't addressed the first -- universal -- half of SK2: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption". IMO, your explanation of the second half (2e) was weak at best. In any case, someone unrelated recommends deleting it, so your reason is now (even more than previously) moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My !votes are obviously my interpretation of the topic, facts, policies and so forth — that's why they appear in a distinct entry to which I append my sig. In this case, I stand by them and consider your heckling to be vexatious badgering. If you have something to say about the question before us — whether the article should be deleted — please enter a !vote of your own. Warden (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notable for appearing once on the David Letterman show? Gimma a break! –BuickCentury Driver 13:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Warden, that is dumb even by ARS standards. The "event", as it were, is simply being known for having a humorously offensive last name. Muitple late-night talk show hosts talking about does not make that "multiple events", any more than more than 1 reliable source talking about the woman-walks-into-mall-pool makes that "more than 1 event". Christ on a crutch... Tarc (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An attribute is not an event — that's a category error. The point of WP:BIO1E is "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." If a person has a distinctive attribute then the appropriate article to write about this is the article about the person. This goes double when it's the person's name which is distinctive because the name is the best title for the topic as it will be what readers search for. There is no separate event here and no separate article about this non-existent event. WP:BIO1E is not a catch-all for bios that you just don't like. Warden (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest this should be kept on the grounds of numerous precedents including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Gottfried. Mr. Assman was the subject of widespread international coverage over this, and is still referred to in Canadian papers, showing the event has lasting notability - no matter how stupid and idiotic that may be subjectively. I am happy to add citations to the article of press coverage if that would help editors see the notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reading of BIO1E is that it cautions against having a separate article when a person is famous for one thing, and that thing has its own article - in such cases, the name can redirect to the article (e.g. Satoshi Nakamoto, Sarah Spiers). This does not apply in this case. Miracle Pen (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He didn't just get coverage for being covered for a month by David Letterman. He got coverage for doing things outside of Letterman. [41] They list him in a travel guide and he sells Assman merchandise. [42] He still gets mentioned years later, although nothing in too great of a detail that I've yet found. The American ambassador to Canada declared him an international celebrity and visited him. 49% of Canadians recognize him. [43] Dream Focus 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG due to sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a GNG question, not a BLP-1E question, in my opinion. As such, it passes, based upon sources showing. A minor celebrity based on a silly name, but a minor celebrity who is the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage nonetheless... Carrite (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC) My kiwi friend thinks the name of the great American baseball pitcher Randy Johnson is extremely hilarious...[reply]
Keep. This individual clearly isn't notable for only one event. He might not have become famous if not for the particular event that got the ball rolling, but that isn't what the guideline means. —David Levy 02:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not remotely a 1E - he's not a person who was involved in an event, he's famous for being Dick Assman. Wily D 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting case. It's true it's not strictly 1E given that having a weird name is a feature, not an event, but even if it was 1E, the "event" would be the name itself, so the only conceivable title for the article is the name. Sources show notability. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the reason for his notability (as outlined by Dreamfocus) is absurd doesn't make it any less notable. Too many parts to his story to be labelled "One event". PhnomPencil (✉) 13:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage across multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO criteria. —Theo polisme 22:25, 12 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. Sandstein 07:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine House of Representatives elections in Central Visayas, 2013

[edit]

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

Minor pending elections, listing of candidates Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. We really need this dumping of Philippino local election details to stop. --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. Do we really need an article for all congressional races in the Philippines next year? As a suggestion, should you nominate any more articles, it would help to have just a single mass nomination rather than several individual AfDs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: After the above discussion was closed as "delete", a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 2 concluded that it should be relisted. Sandstein 10:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will certainly be notable after it occurs (election to a national legislature of a populous nation) and I think there's enough hard information for it not to be deleted as premature. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- these are elections to a national legislature. These are notable by default. If these are still in a sorry state by June 2013, then nominate it. A similar article was nominated in 2010 (see this) and pretty much every reason to delete (being a placeholder article, too trivial, WP:CRYSTAL) has been substantially refuted. I can't even imagine "Do we really need an article for all congressional races in the Philippines next year? " as a valid argument in any AFD. Again, revisit in June 2013 (or after the election), and if it's shitty, I'd be more than happy to support its deletion, provided all of the similar articles for the 2013 House of Representatives elections are also deleted. –H T D 13:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard type of article --we have these for all congressional districts in the US, and we should for other countries also. Elections to a national legislature are considered national, not local election, for our purpose, because there can reasonably be general interest, not merely local interest from the district. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elections to national legislatures are very notable. Considering this election is in May, it is not too soon. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have tons of articles like this on US elections, and the Philippines is by no means less important than the US. I think we could have articles down to constituency level in every national election of any country. --Soman (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that I was not that familiar with the notability guidelines for legislative elections, and for that I apologize. Since it appears that such elections elsewhere have articles too, this should probably be kept in order to avoid systemic bias. I still think the article needs more sources though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:44, 7 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 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sama

[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: All the other players on the Liverpool F.C. team have pages, his article is simply a stub. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this article is about Stephen Sama not other articles. Fact is he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also fails WP:GNG, doesnt matter who he plays for.Simione001 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping an article. This player fails both WP:NFOOTBALL (due to never having played in a fully-professional league or cup) and WP:GNG due to the lack of in-depth coverage. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the fact "other Liverpool players have pages" is due to them having played professional football, however the reason this individual's page should be deleted is because he hasn't. Cloudz 679 12:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage in reliable source, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 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 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.R. Bronco

[edit]

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

Delete because this is not at all notable and is solely being used for promotion MUMMYMAN (talk) 04:36, 6 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 6. Snotbot t • c » 05:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there isn't anything notable about this program except for its connection with the university, but that doesn't appear to be sufficient justification to keep the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sort of detail that belongs on the school's web site. I see no purpose in making a redirect from this term, which is simply their private bureaucratic umbrella term that nobody outside the college would ever think of searching for. Whether any of the individual programs are notable, or even suitable for redirects, is another matter. Three currently have articles: I nominated 1 for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this internal institutional programme has any notability. AllyD (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, which is the more appropriate place for this subject. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and promotional. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 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 Steven M. Greer. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure Project

[edit]

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

This subject is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. WP:CORPDEPTH is also very lacking, other than what's available on Steven M. Greer. The one press conference appears not to meet WP:1E. JFHJr (㊟) 03:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge: ~~Unable to find reliable sources which establishes the notability of the article. Nothing within the article itself suggests otherwise. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)~~ Upon future reflection, I would agree with Kitfoxxe that merging into Steven M. Greer would probably be better suited unless a reliable source can be found to establish notability of the Disclosure Project. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Steven M. Greer. It's his project. He seems to be notable enough, given the sources for his article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep This is a notable topic in UFOlogy which is not solely limited to Steven M. Greer, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources that discuss the word is used by others besides him. Google Scholar only turns up advocates and a CSICOP article about various kinds of conspiracy theories. Shii (tock) 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 11 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 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beslan Isaev

[edit]

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

Subject is MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization (failing WP:MMANOT). The article's only source is a listing of his fight record so there's no significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Many of his fights are for ProFC which I guess in Russian. They are not listed as first or second tier - do they even rate?Peter Rehse (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. They have no highly ranked fighters, which is how top tier organizations are determined. Second tier organizations are based more on WP consensus. However, it's competing for top tier organizations that show fighter notability--competing at the highest level means competing agianst the best. Papaursa (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious about ProFC - they seem to show up often enough. Not really relevant to this discussion I know but would they be second tier or something else.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. If the article is substantially improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. Kevlar (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 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 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Santella

[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization, thus failing WP:MMANOT. Being ranked as a top prospect is not the same as being ranked among the top fighters. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is listed on the page for the promotion a "current champion" That's enough--the people who work on the series apparently don't think it even warrants keeping a list of successive champions. No redirect is needed, for those who search for the name will find it there, while he still is the champion ~
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT and not notable for anything else. Mdtemp (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 11 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 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kairo Isaac

[edit]

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

Subject has no fights for even a second tier MMA organization and only 3 fights overall. Clearly does not meet WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable via WP:REALITYSTAR. Isaac won an Indian reality show a few months ago, as well as Manjit Kolekar. Pound4Pound (talk)

Delete Not notable...and WP:REALITYSTAR was a failed guidline by the way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well he has won a popular reality show none the less, so what notability criteria can be used to support notability? Pound4Pound (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates made to page Including name change, added in information over most recent fight, and sources from India's biggest newspaper covering the event. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will be bringing forward on WP:MMANOT about classing the Super Fight League for second tier status very soon if anyone is interested in joining the topic Pound4Pound (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter. Even if SFL is classified as second tier, he's not close to meeting WP:MMANOT. The reality he show he won was an MMA show--if winning The Ultimate Fighter doesn't grant notability (and consensus says it doesn't), then how can winning a much less significant competition do it? Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a reality show, and he did win it, if it was sometime like Big Brother then no-one would dispute it, so what difference does make if it was a MMA reality show? The Ultimate Fighter is a notable reality show for MMA, as it airs on FX and has masses of viewers watching every season. The show was popular in India and because of this I believe that this debate should also be included in a reality show-related deletion discussion, so that a clearer view can be made. the same for Manjit Kolekar as well. If the Super Fight League does get to be a second tier promotion, then it adds strength to it if anything as even the nominator says it like fighting for a second tier promotion means something towards notability - "Subject has no fights for even a second tier MMA organization and only 3 fights overall." I will be bringing up the debate on WT:MMANOT right now so if anyone wants to join in, they can do so. Pound4Pound (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even though it was a failed guideline proposal, it does state at the top of the page, and I quote "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy; however, these criteria are considered a fair test of whether a Reality Television participant merits an article at Wikipedia." So because of this, to say that Isaac is notable can be considered a fair view based on his TV success.

Delete - Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. Kevlar (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Beansy (talk) 01:09, 12 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 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remcom

[edit]

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

Non-notable extremely minor software company GrapedApe (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources come to light. I found a bit of coverage that is apparently press-release driven here. But overall I get the feeling that while the company's XFDTD product might make an argument for notability based upon the publications that reference it, the company itself seems to lack coverage in RS. Celtechm (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Celtechm above, the product XFDTD appears to be somewhat noteworthy, and there might be enough information to establish notability; there is a significant lack for the company itself. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 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. Sandstein 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touché (quartet)

[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Award mentioned does not meet the "major award" criteria required to demonstrate notability. RadioFan (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Though it evidently does not meet the nominator's definition of "major music competition" (notability criterion 9), the subject's championship is the pinnacle of achievement for (24,000) members of the Sweet Adelines. Having won makes the quartet one of the most prominent representatives of the barbershop style (notability criterion 7). —ADavidB 16:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The examples WP:MUSIC gives of major music awards are Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. While I'm sure this qaurtet is proud of the recognition they received in the Sweet Adelines International competition. It is a niche award and does not rise to the level of a Grammy or Juno.--RadioFan (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quartet under consideration won an international competition. Awards such as the listed examples are for a separate criterion item (no. 8). There are a dozen criteria, only one of which is necessary for notability. —ADavidB 05:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSIC#9 refers to winning or placing in a major music competition. (emphasis mine). I'm not convinced this competition rises to the level of "major". --RadioFan (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your interpretation is as I expected. Alas, that criterion doesn't define "major". The Sweet Adelines Competition Handbook provides full details on the quartet competition process, which involves preliminary regional/area contests, four judging categories, four- and 8-judge panels, penalties, multiple sessions, etc. According to the Denver Post write-up, about 6,000 people gathered for this year's international competition at the Pepsi Center. If such information still doesn't meet your or others' consideration of a major competition, notability criterion 7 still apples. —ADavidB 07:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A single article on the competition in the local newspaper which mentions the group once does not demonstrate the group as "prominent representatives" of the style. A WP:BEFORE search on the group brings up no mentions in Google Books, only the Denver Post article in Google News and mostly self published or reference to self published material in Google Web searches. Perhaps the commonality of the name is making it difficult to find reliable sources here?--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contend that this Sweet Adelines International barbershop quartet (out of about 1,200 registered) who won its most recent annual international competition in the barbershop style is automatically among the most prominent representatives of that style. —ADavidB 18:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that is the case I would think there would be some reliable sources that could be used to demonstrate this. Are there no other references from somewhere other than the competition itself and a passing mention in the local paper?--RadioFan (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With your self-described exclusionist leaning regarding article subjects, and your repeated dismissal of The Denver Post as a "local paper", I don't think I'll be changing your view. I've added another source (A Cappella News) and content to the Touché article, however. —ADavidB 04:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A Cappella News" is a self published blog not a reliable source. Also, let's stick to discussing the article and not other editors please.--RadioFan (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The stated information on article exclusionism is linked via the signature of the above posts other than mine, and placed prominently in the third sentence there. A Cappella News sourcing is undone in the subject article. —ADavidB 16:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what you are getting at. You are the only editor of this article except for my prod and subsequent AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage seems to be strictly local, and AFACIT what there is seems only to be trivial mentions, insufficient to demonstrate notability. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Denver was the host city for this year's international competition. None of the members of Touché are from Denver. This is now clearer in the article. —ADavidB 08:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not clear from the references. Are there reliable sources outside of Denver? --RadioFan (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage consists of a fleeting mention in the Denver Post article (a useful article all the same which I've addeed to Sweet Adelines International). The other cited articles seem to be general sources rather than talking about Touché. I can't find anything significant online, though it's not an easy name to search for (I'm willing to be proved wrong). Sionk (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other content and cited articles are included to help convey the significance of a quartet's winning the international contest and the resultant prominent representation of its music style, a criterion for notability that seems too readily dismissed. —ADavidB 06:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is established by coverage in 3rd party sources where the subject of the wikipedia article is the primary subject of the reference. Mentions in references about other subjects (such as the competition here) are great for validating specifics in the wikipedia article but do little to establish notability. Even dozens of articles that mention the subject in passing dont equate to a single article where the subject of the wikipedia article is the primary subject of the reference. If there were some reliable source that had written something about this group, where the group was the primary subject of the article, that would help here a lot. After 2+ weeks and multiple editors involved, that's not happening.--RadioFan (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Third party coverage is one form of notability, though certainly not the only or there'd be little need for the Music notability criteria, on which this discussion is supposedly to be based. Exclusionist leanings aside, the subject of this article did win this year's international contest (first place, top scorer, received the title) which makes them a prominent representative of their (notable) music style. —ADavidB 18:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another source happened. —ADavidB 08:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:11, 8 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 all WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. There does seem to be one 6-minute video some kid uploaded to Vimeo, but the guff about teaching "a wide variety of issues 6th and 12th grade children face", and the number of articles being created (List of episodes, Season 1, templates etc) take this into the category of "hoax we shouldn't any waste more time on". JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Folkmanis

[edit]

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

I am unable to find any sources on this show which leads me to believe it is either not notable or doesn't exist. This deletion nomination also includes the following dependent pages:

Classic Folkmanis (season 1)
List of episodes of Classic Folkmanis
Template:Classic Folkmmanis (appears to be just a typo)
Template:Classic Folkmanis

Even if the main article is kept I think all of the dependent pages listed above should for deleted regardless as they appear unnecessary. -- Patchy1 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Website link in userspace draft doesn't exist. -- Patchy1 02:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything on the series, although the soft toy exists, so I'm concluding that either this article is premature or it's a hoax Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a Web series hosted on Vimeo. In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, said series does not appear to meet our requirements for reliable secondary coverage at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the Folkmanis puppets (the ones being sold) are unrelated to this - they've been going for 35 years and look quite genuine. I think the name has been pinched for this Vimeo thing. The idea of using puppets to address problems that 12th grade students have is bizarre to me. 6th grade has me doubting... The cast list of two totally unknown people and the lack of real info make me think it well enough not known to be deleted. Peridon (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have just been looking at the puppets at Folkmanis - I'm almost tempted to replace my little rabbit with a new one from them. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 6 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 Melanie Amaro. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long Distance (Melanie Amaro song)

[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased (or very recently released) song. Fails notability per WP:NSONG. - Mr X 01:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect agree per nom, the song itself does not currently meet WP:NSONG Tiggerjay (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Agree with reasons below to redirect Tiggerjay (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melanie Amaro. I'm seeing some write-ups for this song, the best of which are these three [44][45][46], which I'm not sure are enough to warrant an individual article at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to Melanie Amaro. Not yet notable, but a full on delete isn't really needed considering it will presumably chart soon and receives reviews. --Shadow (talk) 07:00, 10 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) 20:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upverter

[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Relies on references to primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject. Searching only shows press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Searching yielded some in-depth independent reviews of the Upverter product/website, but these were blogs or semi-journalistic sites, e.g., Hack a Day that probably don't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Nothing came up on Google Scholar that was related to this company or its product. Note that 'upverter' is a term already in use in electronics and typically refers to a low to high voltage power converter. When the company or product garners independent reviews or news articles from reliable sources, re-creating this article would be reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the company and product is interesting, I could only find a few press releases and three articles on ITbusiness.ca when searching HighBeam and NewsBank. Not really enough to establish notability. - Mr X 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom that the sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability; the article was wholly written by what seems to be an editor with no other contributions to the project Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above comments, there is not enough to demonstrate notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:26, 6 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 19:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Giverin

[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He has not played a game with the senior team. Although he has played in a senior match, the Belgian Second Division is not fully pro, meaning the article still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles per reasons stated by Sir Sputnik. - Mr X 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (I hadn't realized Royal Antwerp weren't a top division side until now though!) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - both articles is about footballers who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented their country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 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.

Sergiu Popovici

[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a non-notable footballer who is yet to have made his debut in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY guidelines. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player made 7 appearances for CSU Vointa Sibiu in the 2011-12 Liga I - this is a fully pro league by this guideline. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources, you'll see he's actually made 8 appearances for Vointa Sibiu, and that all of them were in Liga II which is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Had a bad feeling that the poorly written article misled me after I'd submitted that... I've struck my vote and now say Delete. (I can't see soccerbase as the internet filters here block it) Lukeno94 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. I've closed this earlier than usual, but given the crystal-clear consensus it's clear where this is heading, and the BLP concerns voiced by participants outweigh procedure-for-the-sake-of-procedure. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ausman

[edit]

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

This BLP article seems to have been created primarily as an excuse to list a lot of controversies about the article's subject. An ongoing edit war is in progress between the article's creator and the article's subject.

Jon Ausman also doesn't appear to be notable, just some mentions in local newspapers and TV. Rotten regard 01:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's held no significant office. He's gotten involved in some local level political squabbles, few folks like this are notable, which is why they don't have articles on wikipedia. Plus someone seems to want to make this a hit piece, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ausman, the longest serving member of the Democratic National Committee in Florida history and the longest serving county chair in Leon County history, has played a notable role in both Florida and Leon County politics. In 2008 he wrote the appeal, and presented it on live CSPAN and CNN coverage, which resulting in the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee unanimously awarding Florida its delegates after the same committee had stripped Florida of delegates.

Jon Ausman was the only campaign manager who defeated a Florida incumbent Member of Congress during the 1990s. He helped write the delegate selection rules for the Democratic National Conventions for the Florida Democratic Party in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000. In addition, he was the Florida delegate coordinator for the 2004 John Kerry campaign and the 2008 Dennis Kucinich campaign.

Mr. Ausman has guided nearly 85% of all the campaigns he has advised - local, regional, congressional and statewide - to successful results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausman1953 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a claim to notability for wikipedia, its a resume. How many other Leon County chairs have Wikipedia articles for that role? BTW, your username is "Ausman1953," so regardless of who you are, you can't be unbiased.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable local politician; there are hundreds of non-notable DNC and RNC members. We've got a bizarre hybrid between the vanity version favored by User:Ausman1953, and the attack version favored by some hater(s) out there. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Jon_Ausman Ausman1953 has identified himself as the subject of the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article failing WP:MOS and WP:POLITICIAN. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:USERFY as I assume User:Ausman1953 may be the same person as the bio.--MONGO 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN Tiggerjay (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto. Bluehotel (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete Not notable...and I am concerned about some of the attack-type stuff. Non of it is sourced. There seems to be an edit war between the creator of the page and it's subject. This is very disturbing. See WP:BLP --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the subject fails WP:GNG as to substantial coverage by reliable sources. WP:POLITICIAN is so distant it's almost a straw man. Even if the subject were notable, and especially in that case, edit history would merit deletion for WP:BLP concerns alone. JFHJr (㊟) 05:46, 8 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 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Rowe (footballer)

[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTBALL as having not appeared in a fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as having never played in a fully-pro league. Finding sources for James Rowe is not easy - there is an ex-Birmingham City academy player with the same name. Even more confusing is that this Sky Sports article, [47], lists him as originally being a Bournemouth AFC player, not a Southampton one - although this is clearly a different player, as [48] mentions him as being 19 in 2006 (the article dates are missing in the articles themselves, but [49] tells me they are 2006 sources), so this could even be a third James Rowe. The situation with Jamie Turley is far easier - he's the only player of that name, and I could only find one national source - a BBC article[50] about his transfer. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - articles is about two footballers who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented their country at senior level, which means they fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG because they hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 11 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 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyrush

[edit]

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

This indie punk rock band fails WP:N and also appears to fail WP:BAND. Searches in Google Books are not yielding any coverage. Searches in GNews archives are only providing passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the total absence of sources except 'official sites' strongly suggests a miniscule degree of notability Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There is not enough sources to establish notability, nor inbound references. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:10, 6 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 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lingus

[edit]

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

This indie rock band from Antrim, Northern Ireland appears to fail WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources after searches in GNews archives and GBooks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unsure that "enjoying airplay" is sufficient when the benchmark seems to be 'rotation'. The absence of sources except MySpace site strongly suggests sub-optimal notability for Wikipedia. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon - Despite performing very detailed searches (adding "Antrim music", "indie rock" and "Ireland") at Google News UK, Ireland and US, it seems they never established sufficient ground. One of my searches provided this minor mention (seventh paragraph from the top) as part of a compilation CD on which they were featured, unsurprisingly, from 2004. Additionally, the lack of sources is probably due to their short four-year term. It also seems they were primarily based in Ireland so any relevant sources should only be English unless they established a fan base in other countries, which I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Yet another short term and non-notable band. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for per above and for failing verifiability. Links show only broadcasts and no references. A notable band would have significant coverage. Blue Riband► 02:59, 13 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 Elis (band)#Discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Clouds in a Perfect Sky

[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMG#Recordings. Morefoolhim 20:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Allmusic has a placeholder entry for the album, but no review. I couldn't find much else, other than some user reviews at metal-archives.com, to show that the notability requirements are met. Fails WP:NALBUMS. — sparklism ^hey! 08:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coren ^(talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 02:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to Elis (band) Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elis_(band)#Studio_albums - An English Google News search provided several results but nothing sufficient for Wikipedia. Nearly all of the results are minor mentions aside from this Portuguese link that briefly talks about the album. Unfortunately, I wouldn't have the capacity to search for German sources but, from an English perspective, it seems this album isn't notable, but hey, not all albums receive significant attention or are notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band article. This is a plausible search term and should redirect appropriately. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per SwisterTwister. Apparent non-notable album; plausible search term with a reasonable target section within the band's main article. Gongshow ^Talk 20:21, 6 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 In addition to the comments made below, I have done various other searches and checks, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avia TV (Asia)

[edit]

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

Channel simply does not exist at all, a hoax entry created by Nguyenducloc1997 (talk · contribs), who has been a troublesome editor on Asian cable channel articles. The only Avia TV which is exists is a WP:ADVERT for an English plastic surgery center without any connections to television at all outside of adverts. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As it's a hoax, it can be deleted as CSD#1 Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing speedy deletion - Agreed, the article claims they air reality, comedy and children's programming but the promotional website claims they focus with plastic surgery. Additionally, the article claims it is owned by BBC and yet, if this were true, there would be a significant amount of evidence. To satisfy my curiosity, I searched at Google News but found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 6 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. It's not especially clear how intrinsically notable a descendent of the house of Hess may be, and given the divided opinions, there is clearly no consensus to delete. — Coren ^(talk) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm, Landgrave of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld

[edit]

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

A contested prod. After doing a book search and news archive search this person appears not to meet the general notability guidelines. They seem to be a private individual who just happen to be a descendant of an aristocratic lineage. Rotten regard 21:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The house which he is supposed to be head of looks pretty obscure. PatGallacher (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Wilhelm is definitely descended from the Holy Roman Empire rulers of Hesse. That said, given the plethora of those holding titles in pretence (especially from the HRE, which was always splintered at best), separate notability guidelines for nobility and aristocrats are definitely in order. Faustus37 (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ground cited for deletion ("a private individual who just happen to be a descendant of an aristocratic lineage") is applicable to any of the hundreds of British peers and their relatives, living and dead, (including those who were never entitled to sit in the House of Lords) on which Wikipedia continues to add articles daily. This individual is the heir of a dynasty which ruled in Europe for hundreds of years, and who represents that historical legacy, and is part of a geo-politically important series. He, his occupation, memberships and family are thoroughly documented in such published reliable sources as Burke's British Royal Family, Queen Victoria's Descendants by Marlene Eilers, the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, The Descendants of King George II by Daniel Willis, etc. This article needs improvement from these sources, not deletion. FactStraight (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He's a direct descendent of a known noble house. meets WP:BIO--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the notability requirements. --Shorthate (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — being a direct descendant of a noble house does not confer automatic notability, not least because there are millions out there. I haven't found any substantial coverage indicating this subject meets WP:ANYBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did Landgraviate of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld have sovereign right? If it had Keep. Genealogiajapan (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no significant coverage about him. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Faustus, Fact, and Sue; he is "head one of the two remaining branches of the House of Hesse." Royalty are almost always notable, but this is a marginal case. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC) See also User:Bearian/Standards#Consorts_of_nobility. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article stands this person doesn't meet the WP:BIO guidelines. Morefoolhim 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As he is the leader of an aristocratic household, House_of_Hesse, this shouldn't of even been nominated for deletion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep head of important German princely house, individual appears in numerous sources as listed by FactStraight. - dwc lr (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 6 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 redirected to DreamWorks#Distribution. Already done for a week without further comment, no need for another seven days. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Smith Entertainment

[edit]

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

Revert to DreamWorks: It's a new company, and the only notable thing they've done so far is being the foreign sales agent for Spielberg's DreamWorks. Regardless, that isn't notable enough for a separate article. Besides, you can see the same information on the DreamWorks page anyway, so it isn't a big loss. Freshh (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I might as well redirect the Mister Smith article to the DreamWorks article. TheWikiMan95 (talk) Mario Saenz 21:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 6 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.