< 8 December	10 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nizamul Huq[edit]

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

Not even close to WP:NOTE Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I, on the other hand, think that the biography of a supreme court justice who is currently swirling in scandal is of the utmost noteworthiness, so perhaps we need other opinions and discussion to back up those opinions. I look forward to it.Aminul802 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judge of a national supreme court. Of course he's notable. WP:POLITICIAN and WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's not just any old supreme court, but that of the eighth most populous country in the world. Not even close to failing WP:NOTE. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Article already includes independent secondary sources. Lord Roem (talk) 16:50, 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) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly Universities Rose Float[edit]

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

No acceptable sources for notability and no reason to expect there would be. The content is not even worth merging, as it is totally non-encyclopedic and local to the college. There's already a link to the student group building it in the Tournament of Roses floats article, and this is all that's needed. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Rose Parade is an internationally notable event, and the annual float is notable because a) it is annual and b) it is always done as a joint venture of the two universities, unique among all the floats. 72Dino (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant media coverage. The brief mention in Tournament of Roses Parade is all this merits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Rose Parade is extremely notable, with a very limited number of floats. In my opinion, each of these floats may be notable, not through inherited notability from the parade (Although that may be a factor) but on their own, due to a years work of efforts, publicity, etc. that leads up to each display. For example, when a float isn't able to make it one year for some reason, it is always noted that XYZ could not enter their float this year due to ABC reason. To me, a float would be notable if it were missed a year later, especially this one, as it is one of the major displays. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Plenty of media coverage on an annual float featured on such a high-profile event. For example:

San Diego Union-Tribune

among many others...

-- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 01:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think those sources alone are enough to satisfy even the most challenging of notability concerns. ~~Still, this article needs help. It is poorly written, and it needs to be renamed. Bad spelling is not very encyclopedic.~~ --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my spelling comment, I just read it in context as plural and not a mispelling of the posessive. I need coffee. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable parade, notable schools, notable float with a long history. Mrfrobinson (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Different[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Listing on Billboard is not sufficient, editorial discussion is required, and there needs to be enough discussed to warrant a reasonably detailed article. -MJH (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSONGS. Has charted on three billboard charts. Used in Champs Sports commercial. A simple google search turns up [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Which more then suffices. STATic message me! 22:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Nom is based on the condition of the article rather than the notability of its subject, which the nominator does not appear to have properly researched. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All those references merely list the song, mention that it was performed, or that the artist is making a video. Notability per WP:NSONG requires substantial and repeated discussion about this particular track. Then you article needs to pick up enough details from those discussions for an actual article, no just the Billboard ranking. WP is not a marketing platform. At best, I suggest a merge the content to Based on a T.R.U. Story---MJH (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has appeared on several Billboard charts, so passes the notability criteria. The article isn't in a great state, but that appears to be the only issue – it's still notable. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSONGS. The article is rather short, but its subject has charted on several Billboard charts; it became a top fifteen hit on two of them. Holiday56 (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 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 per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination, and no delete !votes are present other than the nomination. Thanks to the editors who worked to demonstrate the notability for this band. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Users (band)[edit]

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

A punk rock band formed in Cambridge, England that likely fails WP:N and WP:BAND. Source searching has not provided coverage in reliable sources. The only source in the article that is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes requires a subscription to access the article, so I'm unable to read it to ascertain it's length, level of coverage, etc. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added more notable sources to the article, including their official webpages. They are notable in the Punk scene for being an early cult. Their first single supposedly sold 20,000 copies, and was included in John Peel's personal record box (which was unveiled after his death). This single was also the first release on Lee Wood's punk independent record label, "Raw Records" (later bought out by Damaged Goods). I believe they're also mentioned in a book on John Peel, but I'll have to dig it out to be sure. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band are covered in Georgege Gimarc's Punk Diary and have more than a page dedicated to them in Alex Ogg's No More Heroes.--Michig (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, they were not Elvis, Beatles, or the Rolling Stones, but they were a notable historical punk band as part of the 70s British punk movement. I added a few more cites.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:32, 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 the main article and no consensus regarding the second article. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Mogren[edit]

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

This is a viral hoax/promotional gimmick/publicity stunt to garner attention for the next Metal Gear game. Joakim = Kojima; Mogren = Project "Ogre". See: this, this, and this. Forbes lays it out rather well here. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising or presenting hoaxes. Cindy(talk to me) 19:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is additionally a hoax, created to perpetuate the hoax within the Joakim Mogren article. As Forbes states, "The Phantom Pain is Kojima's viral teaser for Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes".:

Comment - With all due respect, I believe we should give him and the company the benefit of the doubt, there is no evidence to support that this is indeed a hoax; it is all coincidental. lb8068 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)— Lb8068 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That may or may not be true but it's ultimately irrelevant. We're not here to prove that this is/isn't a hoax. This discussion is to assess notability and I haven't seen a single argument that supports that the subject of this article is notable per WP:N. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why must people grasp straws at everything being a hoax? Kotaku and VG247 have no concrete proof to their claims; and I happened to contact the site owner. He is indeed swedish and has provided me a copy of the birth certificate. Get over yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.133.229 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — 108.27.133.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It doesn't matter. There's no proof that this is a real person, let alone a notable per per WP:BIO. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Joakim Mogren definitely qualifies for speedy delete even if the article wasn't an awful non-factual unencyclopedic mess, due to the person not being notable yet. I note however that the nominator also put the AFD template on the article for the game, The Phantom Pain (video game). I consider this to be a bad faith nomination based on the content of the Joakim Mogren article, especially as the game's article isn't even mentioned in the nomination, but has apparently been lumped in the AFD for some reason. The game itself is definitely real, and its article is being properly sourced with factual information and should be kept. --Ifrit (Talk) 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Before assuming bad faith, you should actually review the links I provided above, specifically the one from Forbes. Note that the rationale is provided in the bundle. Bad form, Ifrit. Cindy(talk to me) 20:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I assumed bad faith mostly because of the coenciding vandalism of Joakim Mogren. But still, the Forbes.com article saying The Phantom Pain being a viral campaign for Ground Zeroes is just their speculation. In fact, Geoff Keighley, who was involved in the production of the Spike VGAs, stated the complete opposite; that The Phantom Pain is its own game, not previously revealed. Edit: Here's a link.--Ifrit (Talk) 20:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Actually, Forbes states, "The Phantom Pain isn’t an upcoming game at all — it’s an elaborate teaser for Kojima’s Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes." As far as the link to Twitter? Uh, "Phantom Pain is an a completely game"... uh, hunh? Your statement above is not an accurate reflection of the tweet posted. Cindy(talk to me) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: It is quite clear what the meaning of Keighley's tweet was despite the typo, and the only source you have for the The Phantom Pain trailer only being viral marketing for Ground Zeroes even states that this is only the hunch of the writer. Until your claim is proven The Phantom Pain should be treated as a separate game, thus it should not be included in this AfD.
No, it does not. It states, "But The Phantom Pain isn’t an upcoming game at all — it’s an elaborate teaser for Kojima’s Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes. For now it’s obviously a hunch..." ^[1] If anyone's being speculative, it's you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.206.6 (talk • contribs)
Merge and Redirect to Hideo Kojima - The subject of this article fails WP:BIO as none of the news sources listed in the article or that I can find represent significant coverage of the subject. The subject of this article is only mentioned with the unknown/also-made-up Moby Dick Studios. More importantly, this reliable source speculates that "Joakim Mogren" is a name being used by Hideo Kojima (Joakim is an anagram of Kojim and Mogren contains "ogre" and "Project Ogre" is a semi-secret project that Kojima is working on). Regardless of whether or not you think this is a hoax, there is no evidence that this subject satisfies any part of WP:N, particularly WP:BIO. At the end of this AfD, this article should be deleted or redirected to Kojima. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I didn't see the game nomination. I agree with Mr. Mittens that the game article should be Kept. It should be merged into the appropriate Metal Gear Solid article, when/if it becomes clear that the game is connected. I still stand by deleting the Joakim article or merging and redirecting it to Hideo Kojima if we can be sure that it's really a representation of Kojima. Since I have lots of "ifs" in my !vote, I'll just say that unless new evidence is presented by the end of this AfD, the Joakim article should be deleted and the game article should be kept. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 9. Snotbot t • c » 21:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or not, notability is not established (image is pretty clearly fake, though). Hairhorn (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . No plausible claims of significance or importance. No substantial reliable, independent, 3rd party sources. Fails WP:BIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bio page, keep the game article. The video game is covered by Joystiq, Game Informer, IGN, Game Revolution, VideoGamer, Edge, Kotaku, 4Gamer, Famitsu, Siliconera, Shacknews, GamesRadar, VG247, and Eurogamer. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/ related page(s) (Hideo Kojima and/or Metal Gear)Green Runner 0 03:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not really a secret that this is supposed to be tied to MGS. There's no evidence that Joakim Mogrem is a real person outside of the Moby Dick website. We should keep the article for The Phantom Pain, at least until more tangible connections to Metal Gear emerge. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article at Joakim Mogren; even if it's not a hoax, it would fail WP:BIO at this time. The only evidence that the person exists are primary sources and do not meet the threshold of notability. However, keep The Phantom Pain (video game) at this time; it appears well documented via multiple sources that it exists; any linking of it to being viral advertising is original research at this point. There are several reporters questioning if it's real, but no confirmation one way or the other from any reliable sources. If it later turns out to be part of an advertising campaign, it can be merged into the real product's article at a later time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create a page for Moby Dick Studio and Merge. While the CEO might not qualify for notability standards, an article on the company itself with a subsection on the CEO has a viable claim at notability. --Deuxhero (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. We also don't know if Moby Dick Studios is a real studio. The1337gamer (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While looking very likely, it being a hoax is still just speculation. Doesn't WP:BALL apply? --Deuxhero (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bastock[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL, so should be deleted... do you agree? JMHamo (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Played more than 100 games in the Football League, which I'd have thought just about passes WP:NFOOTBALL... Please see WP:BEFORE. Struway2 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't think he played in the Football League, just for Conference side teams. JMHamo (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets NFOOTBALL, and on the way to meeting GNG. Nominator really needs to check sources before nominating. Giant Snowman 15:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He played in an English Third Division match (or Football League Two), which clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets guidlines.Babylon77 (talk) 08:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 01:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jambo OpenOffice[edit]

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

Jambo OpenOffice is a Swahili translation of OpenOffice.org by the Kilinux project. Jambo OpenOffice is outdated and unmaintained. I once merged the article into Kilinux which – even though the name suggests that – is not a Linux distribution. That merge was recently undone and the editor asked for an AfD discussion. So here it is! My take: Jambo OpenOffice is not relevant enough for its own article anyway, it causes lots of duplication with the OpenOffice.org article as well as Kilinux. Especially Kilinux and Jambo OpenOffice both talk about an glossary, a Spanish company donating Visual Studio, and so on. KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article with lots of reliable sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the person who was expanding and digging for hours while searching with google for references and as the person who was undoing the merge. The software deserves its own article as it was a major (first) step translating/localizing OOo/any software in Swahili. Except for the fact it was an OOo derivate and translating, what do these two articles have common? mabdul 21:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kilinux and JOO articles cover almost completely the same topic. The OOo article serves as reference for the technological base. Not every OOo fork needs its own article. The existence of sources does not prevent it from being completely merged into Kilinux. Merge. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that every OOo fork needs it's own article, that's exactly the reason why OxygenOffice, RomanianOffice, EuroOffice (former MagyarOffice), PlusOffice (from OpenZone), Luxuriosity Office, and OpenOffice.org Novel Edition/LibreOffice Novel Edition don't have their own articles. JOO instead received wide media attention because it was something "new" and one of first localization projects (and I believe the very first for an African language).

The Kilinux project on the other side is something like a main article giving a short overview of the many projects they did(do?), like the localization of Firefox and other software projects. (similar to OpenOffice Writer has an summary in OpenOffice) Overall the OOo fork received most attention and has enough information and moreover enough 3rd party and reliable references for an own article. mabdul 12:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per KAMiKAZOW and the soruces currently in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KAMiKAZOW is for a merge... mabdul 19:20, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very notable article with lots of reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:00, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Rindo[edit]

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion here, but no consensus was reached due to procedural problems. The fact remains Mr. Rindo has not received significant coverage and has not played in a fully pro league. His one appearance in the cup was against Fukushima United F.C., a lower division club. This means the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the guy who originally nominated this article for AfD. One cup match at an early stage of a cup does not make a player notable - especially when played against an amateur or semi-pro side.Lukeno94 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, which outweighs WP:NFOOTBALL - and he doesn't meet that either! Giant Snowman 20:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL due to the fact that the one match he played in was against a lower-tier non-professional football club that did not play in a league that was included in WP:FPL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloudz 679 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues or represented his country at senior level, which means that the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 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 Noelia. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Blown (United Nations Remix)[edit]

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

Musical recording (released yesterday) lacking notability per WP:NALBUMS and completely unreferenced. - Mr X 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the third creation of this article under a different name. Notability not established. It is a song released exclusively on YouTube with plans to supposedly release in the future on an album by the same name. Article created in tandem by two members of the A&R team. Merely advertising at this point. Cindy(talk to me) 19:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://musica.univision.com/estrenos-musicales/resenas/article/2012-11-30/nuevo-sencillo-noelia-mind-blown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monte Lipman (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Noelia - Google News found three results here, one of which Monte Lipman has provided above. The third result confirms it was produced by Timbaland and Sean Garret and set for release in 2013. However, it may be too soon for now because there isn't much for an article. The album's page Mind Blown has been redirected to Noelia so I think redirecting somewhere to the artist's page may be a good option for now. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirecting would be a good option. As far as I can tell, only the first of the three sources you found mention the single, and then only superficially. - Mr X 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Given the success of her recent singles, it seems likely that this will chart, so why not wait a week or two before deciding whether it's notable? At the moment, a merge to Noelia looks appropriate, but this may soon change. --Michig (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creep Clash[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of the game in any secondary reliable sources. The source used in the article is not reliable. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability. No news coverage found in any reliable sources. - Mr X 18:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly userfy - Google News and Books provided nothing but a different search provided this press release from 1994. While searching, I found this link that noted the game was low-budget, although it may not be a reliable source, it's probably true. Although there isn't much information and coverage, it is somewhat decently written and I would hate for that to go to waste so userfying may be a good option. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article fails the general notability guideline. The game "Creep Clash" has had no third party coverage in any reliable source. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darlia[edit]

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

There is absolutely no information or images on the 'Darlia' moth to be found. The page has one sentence which is simply a claim that 'Darlia' is a type of moth, and yet nothing exists to back it up.

It has already been suggested by a Wiki page moderator that it may have been created by mistake due to the way that it was created.

There is however a species of 'DAHLIA' moth - 'Dahlia capnobela' and 'Dahlia hesperioides' which there is evidence of online. Nayday (talk) 12:36, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 12:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The genus listed in the infobox is Dahlia, for which there is already an article. The article is probably the result of a typo when the article was created. - Mr X
Keep. This does appear to be a real genus, separate from 'Dahlia', which belongs to a different family. I've corrected the article's infobox and added some sources. There also exist additional book and journal mentions, such as here, but they only offer snippet views, so not that helpful for expanding the WP entry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hobbes' sources suggest that this genus does exist. --Michig (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Treasure Trove[edit]

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

Originally tagged for CSD as copyvio. If you do a search for the first sentence of the article in Google, you will find that the text was previously posted to Facebook and to the blog I mentioned.. It seems to have been removed from there after I nominated the article which may or may not mean that the author of the Wikipedia article is also the person who owns the blog. That would raise serious WP:COI and advertizing issues ("our magazine"). In addition I don't believe this publication passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) Travelbird (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there are foreign language sources that I was unable to find with a google search and translation program, I'm going to say that this just isn't a notable magazine at this point in time. The magazine seems to have launched fairly recently, with this link and this Wikipedia entry saying that the first issue was launched in August of 2012. I know that being new doesn't always mean that it can't get notability, but when you have something that looks to be relatively non-mainstream it's unlikely that it will achieve that overnight notability. It may become notable in the future, but it doesn't seem to be notable right here and now. I do want to note that this CNN report is not actually by CNN but by a CNN blog that anyone can edit on, if anyone was thinking that this might give notability. On a side note, the text there looks to be identical to what is currently on the Wikipedia entry here, so this might be able to be speedied again for copyvio. I think it's fairly obvious that this is by the same people who created the foreign language wiki entry, as the translated text seemed incredibly similar. In any case, this looks to be a rather obvious attempt at self promotion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. No independent sources have been provided yet. Also, the article is written in first person which suggests promotional motives. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a very minor, non-English, new-ish magazine based in Macedonia. This WP article is a bit promotional. Recommend delete until the magazine gets some independent sources discussing it. I suppose there is a small chance that some foreign language sources talk about it in a significant manner, but "Keep" editors would need to provide such sources. --Noleander (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising piece. Does not appear notable at this time. LadyofShalott 03:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Konteh[edit]

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

A footballer whose only claim of notability is playing for Ligue 2 sides FC Nantes and AS Saint-Étienne in 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectfully. Actually, both teams appeared at the Ligue 1 during these seasons, but there is no record of a player named "Oliver Konteh" ever playing for Nantes or Saint-Etienne. Because the player has not allegedly played in another fully professional league and coverage on him is not nearly enough to meet WP:GNG, he fails WP:N and his article should be deleted. – Kosm1 fent 10:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 10:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That the subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL is unverifiable. I've also search for this player on transfermarkt, playerhistory.com and google, and I've found no sign of him playing in Ligue 2. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not 100 % sure he was not in FC Nantes team (non pro players are not oftenly known), but pretty sure he was not in A Team (not possible he played 15 matchs with A Team without any records) => not pro => not eligible. Loreleil (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google has almost nothing on this guy: none of the usual sites seem to crop up. Originator of article is a single purpose account called forzarevilo: reverse the final 6 letters to observe a very clear personal agenda. All other substantive content from single purpose IP numbers all in immediate environs of Columbus: not grounds to delete of itself, but adds to suspicion of self promotion. Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has received insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and all claims to notability under WP:NSPORT are unverified. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Franek K. (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked on Google to find something to prove his notability, LFP has no record of him. Also, the twitter account belonging to a Oliver Konteh has the same username as the editor who created the Oliver Konteh article. Seems like a hoax.TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and CLOSE - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire[edit]

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

This article has no references and is mostly just a definition for the term. Since an entry exists on Wiktionary, content on this article should be added to that page if it isn't already there. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good concept for an article, just needs references IMHO Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a good topic for an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. I'm surprised there is not already such an article. - Mr X 02:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it is a useful word for a range of military articles, but so is the word "the". Not a cohesive topic. No sources, no indication of wp:notability as a topic. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move. To Crossfire (military), and leave behind a disamb page. I'm surprised this doesn't exist yet. §FreeRangeFrog 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is about when the fields of fire from any two guns or weapon systems cross each other. Such an article on no cohesive topic would be doomed to be a mess. Please consider this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with DeathLibrarian. Disagree on deleting articles not because there couldn't or shouldn't be one, but because "it would be a mess". The Steve 10:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per North8000. This is a definition, not something that requires a full article.Intothat darkness 21:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopaedic term, certainly not just a dicdef. Much more can be written about it than has yet been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 08:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable topic, far more than a dictionary definition. Could easily be expanded. Needs sources and improvement, not deletion. Don't move; this is as clear cut a case of WP:Primary topic as I've ever run across, meeting both usage and long-term criteria. Enormously common term; every listing on the disambiguation page is based ultimately on this particular word usage. This is a case of so many incorrect search engine hits, it's difficult to come up with quick online sources, though they are certain to exist. I'm taking the liberty of requesting sources at WT:MILHIST; this should not be seen as canvassing, instead as a legitimate search for sources. (As an aside and reply to User:MrX and User:FreeRangeFrog above--not part of my keep assertion--this article has existed in one form or another since January 2002.) BusterD (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has widespread military usage, so it can be expanded beyond its current state. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a tactic, not just a definition.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FM 3-21.8 uses the term "Interlocking fires."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banamid[edit]

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

Short article translated from another language (Persian?). I could not tell if it was from another Wikipedia. The article doesn't make much sense and has no references. - Mr X 02:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can gather, it is an Iranian company doing something related to architecture. Probably promotional and most likely fails WP:CORP. For anyone here that reads Persian, here is their website: Banamid. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? Bearian (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "most comprehensive consortium of Iranian Architecture and Construction" (machine translation) - now you know? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 08:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and also its an advert for a company. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent jumble of words, flagged as such on Nov 10th without the original WP:SPA contributor ever revisiting to improve it. No evidence of notability, aside from the merest hint that in the fog of words, there may be some claim to prominence, probably only promotional though. AllyD (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD; this looks like a bad translation of a non-English text.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful in any way. --ELEKHH^T 01:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's word salad. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SNOW? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:46, 14 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 please re-list. Consensus is that the articles should be relisted and dealt with individually. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonards Andžāns[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all seem to fail in the same way:

--Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination and relist individually, I looked at a few and they seemed decent enough. Nominator has to start anew and give a better rationale for why each article should be deleted. Geschichte (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close and re-list per Geschichte - these are all of borderline notability and therefore this AfD could get very messy & confusing very quickly. Much better not to bundle in this kind of scenario. Giant Snowman 15:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no possible notability, and no reason to userify , unless evidence appears that it might meet notability DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being in Love... (Bliss or Curse)[edit]

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

It is a novel that appears to have been self-published by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadstart Publishing. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)'s requirement "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." It got covered in The Free Press Journal [6] but I don't see any other coverage. maclean (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — maclean (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles also who do not have any list of references or notability! This one seems better and simple than other Pomp ones. And it is little known too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.191 (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia is listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). I am willing to keep the article if additional coverage in published works can be presented. maclean (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will giving the ISBN in reference will work? And the book deals with a good subject matter; though it is published by the publishers who are notorious for some bad causes! Yet, the book reviews will start to come in upcoming days, so then they will be presented. And as the article does not promise any great words or does not assert any gigantic thoughts about the book, so the simple article can be verified with the given references? Please be kind to simply made articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.71.223 (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Having an ISBN does not count towards notability. Once upon a time in the distant past of Wikipedia it used to be far easier to pass notability guidelines, but the current notability guidelines are pretty strict when it comes to books. The book must be one of the following to pass WP:NBOOK:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. (This excludes blog entries, database entries, any primary sources, or basically anything that comes from something other than an independent and reliable source that Wikipedia considers to be usable. Brief trivial mentions do not count towards notability regardless of whatever source it's in.)
The book has won a major literary award. (This must be a major award. Winning a blog award or any minor award will not count. Some of them can count towards notability, but the vast majority of awards won't even do that. This qualification is for the big ones such as Caldecott or similar.)
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (Short films and movies that never really gained a lot of attention or critical praise usually don't count unless they were recognized in some format.)
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. (This means multiple schools, not just one or two.)
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. (No book has passed this guideline without passing at least 2-3 of the guidelines above. Even then, less than .0001% of authors meet this guideline. This is pretty much for Poe and Shakespeare rather than Laurell K Hamilton or Stephen King.)

It's just insanely hard for a self-published book to meet notability guidelines in most cases. I also have to warn you that we can't keep an article because other poorly sourced articles exist or because more sources might eventually become available. I especially want to warn against that, as odds are the reviews that come in are almost always from non-notable book blogs. This isn't meant as an insult to the blogs, just that 99.99999% of them are considered to be non-usable as far as Wikipedia is concerned.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The problem with the Free Press link is that it only lists the book synopsis from Amazon. This makes it a WP:PRIMARY source at best and primary sources or sources like that can never show notability. Book reviews would show notability if they existed, but only if they were done through reliable sources and were in-depth. As stated above, blogs don't count towards notability and if the book is only mentioned briefly ("Blah blah blah is like Being in Love, which also deals with honor killings), that won't count towards notability. That the book deals with a notable subject matter also doesn't give it notability, no matter how noble the book's intentions are. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I know this can seem frustrating when you have a book that is self-published and is unlikely to gain the attention that the bigger titles and authors will, but this book just doesn't pass the notability guidelines in place for books. I have no problem with this being userfied, if that's the case. I did a big cleanup of the article, so it'd be in good shape to userfy if someone wanted to do that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is userfy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.60 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userfication. Moving the article from the Wikipedia namespace to the User space. Presumably to the creator's namespace. maclean (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find useful sources to evidence notability, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't notable. --Michig (talk) 09:35, 16 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 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Decay (British band)[edit]

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

This punk rock band from Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England appears to fail WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Coverage in reliable sources has not been found after several searches, including those in GNews and Books. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't really contain a credible claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "whose members would prove influential in keeping the Sheffield punk scene alive" But nothing to back up this claim in any WP:RS. Pretty much a fanboy page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They look like they were a 'proper' punk band, but sadly one that doesn't meet our guidleines for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 13:29, 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 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noblesse Oblige (band)[edit]

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

This band fails WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Several customized searches in Google News Archive and Books have only yielded this concert listing. There's an article on Metalhead.ro, but the website is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough found to justify an article. These were the best I could find: [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I couldn't find anything to meet the guidelines for inclusion at WP:MUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 12:49, 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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sindangan National High School Library Quiz[edit]

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

Does not assert notability. Focus (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A quiz conducted in a single high school is very unlikely to be notable. No sources have been provided, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references and not notable at all--Wakowako (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unlikely that this could be notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability whatsoever, and no sources are provided. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local spelling bees and the like are just not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - A quiz given at a high school...really? Go Phightins! 01:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While high schools are notable, individual events in such schools aren't. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:26, 16 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 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narration (band)[edit]

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

This band from Twickenham, London, England appears to fail WP:N and also WP:BAND. Several source searches have not provided significant coverage in reliable sources. They released a video under Fingercuff Productions, but this does not meet criteria at WP:BAND regarding potential for the band to be notable. These two sources found ([9], [10]) only have passing mentions, and this article isn't particularly about the band itself; rather it's about a brawl that occurred at one of their shows, and only provides cursory information about the band itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find the significant coverage in reliable sources that would be the only route to notability for a band at this stage of their career. --Michig (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant inclusion, as they fail WP:BAND at this point in time. — sparklism ^hey! 12:48, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Clean Fun Records[edit]

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

This topic about a former record label appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:N. After several searches, the only coverage found was what appears to be this passing mention in Maximum Rocknroll. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Books found nothing despite adding the owner's name, Matt "Cheap" Redd and simply Matt Redd, but also found nothing. However, Matt Redd lists the record label at his LinkedIn page but aside from this, there isn't anything to establish notability or improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable sources found. Not even a passing mention in gnews. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 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 02:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorm Artists International[edit]

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

This company fails WP:GNG as a threshold matter (no substantial coverage in reliable sources), as well as WP:CORPDEPTH, which would better indicate this group's notability. This company exists mostly in the universe of press releases, scant mentions, and rather baseless incredulous claims such as flatly calling it "legendary". JFHJr (㊟) 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - Google News wasn't helpful despite very detailed searches (adding "Ojo Taylor Gene Eugene", "record label", the former name "Broken Records" and "1987") but Google Books was slightly more helpful providing results especially one book called Raised By Wolves: The Story of Christian Rock & Roll with mentions here, p. 121, claims they were a significant label in the 1980s and began using the name Broken Records in 1985 after another label abandoned the name until that previous owner wanted it again. Here (p. 145, using the label's former name "Broken Records"), here (p. 147, minor mention), here (p. 176, text is located towards the bottom confirming the label closed in the 1990s), here (p. 180, scroll a little bit up to the beginning of the page, extremely minor mention for Lifesavers Underground album released through BAI). Google Books also found two mentions through a 1995 issue of Billboard here (minor mention, named as a distributor label for Diamante Music Group) and here (another minor mention). I attempted to search with the former name, Broken Records, but found nothing else aside from a repeat result for Raised By Wolves. Honestly, record labels rarely receive significant attention unless you are a large corporation or very well known for success. Despite being called a significant label by Raised By Wolves, I haven't found much evidence so I lean towards delete. At best, a redirect to either Ojo Taylor or Gene_Eugene#Music would be better though I would prefer the latter (Gene Eugene#Music). Because I have found few results with the best being Raised By Wolves, I believe the current content may be somewhat or entirely inaccurate. But then again, because of the lack of other sources, I'm not entirely sure. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG in all regards---MJH (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awa Santesson-Sey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR. Existence of music on iTunes is not an indicator of notability. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is amongst the three finalists. The final is next friday. This is a way too early for AfD discussion. And a indication that the nominating user is not familiar with the Swedish X Factor series. Her songs has made it into the ITune lists. This is just one of many way too hasty AfD nominations by MSJapan.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, it's the other way around: It's too early to create the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't establish notability, the subject fails WP:BLP1E and it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. If reliable sources covers the subject music career for a long time after the show is over, I believe the article can be recreated. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are entitled to that opinion, but just saying that if this AfDwill follow procdure it is unlikely to be closed before friday. And Awa is a major favourite to win, and if she wins this entire AfD discussion will be irrelevant as she will have won X factor by then. A speedy keep and awaiting fridays final would have been a better option an option that could have been easily fixed had the nominator asked me or someone else with actual knowledge about X Factor Sweden before nominating this article. It is basically just a huge waist of time and effort for possibly a number of users that will be involved in this discussion. Amd sure you are of the opinion that it is too early for this article but I dont that is the basic premise for this discussion.WP:TOOSOON could apply to this AfD itself as winning a million (SEK) music contract is notability which will make this entire AfD non-valid in a week after the final if it is not closed until then.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Awa is now the first winner of X Factor Sweden and has won a million (SEK) music contract.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NMUSIC states, Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put it her win at X Factor gives her notability. Participation is not the same as winning an entire series. Winning a million (SEK) music contract in itself is notable and winning X Factor is relevant and notable. Most other winners has recieved success within their own country. Read paragraph 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. and paragraph 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.. I rest my case.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or possibly Speedy Keep - in light of the fact that Awa won X Factor and a million(SEK) music contract I have changed my !vote to Strong Keep also because of the fact that she passes NMUSIC paragraphs 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. and paragraph 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network..BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, winning x factor gives notability to the winners in my country the UK. 94.234.170.77 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No seriously, an X Factor winner is deemed not notable? JASpencer (talk) 11:21, 14 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 02:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Kosack[edit]

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

Is this guy notable? An IP is adding a bibliography from this guy into Coptic language article in every language except English. Suspect self promotion or paid promotion. --Jacob.jose (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are global contributions of the IP 178.83.128.189--Jacob.jose (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that he is published and has been cited, but I could find no third party sources to establish his notability. The references in the article fail to support the assertion that he " is an expert in the translation of the ancient Coptic language." - Mr X 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any significant coverage, and he doesn't seem to have won any awards (at least, none that I know) or is well-known, so I'm going with delete. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this issue of Fabula has some citation, but otherwise this subject is very far away from WP:ACADEMIC. He also fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage about him biographically. JFHJr (㊟) 03:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reeks of self-promotion. We can't even translate from the DE article, because it's pretty much exactly the same as the EN one. Quityergreeting (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a review of one of his books in the journal Aegyptus [11]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
kEEP -- This is a significant list of publications. I agree that I would like to hear more about the chap, ratehr than what he has written, but since he writes in German, we are unlikley to find it in English. The German WP obviously considers him notable, or the article would have eben removed there before translations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMIC. I can see evidence online that a few of his books are in some university library catalogues, but very few cites in GScholar, and can find no coverage online at all of the man himself. Maybe his field is so specialized that I'm looking in the wrong places for sources. Altered Walter (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources available to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 16 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 per G5. Only two sentences in the article had any meaningful content, and both were speculation by Apple-related blogs. Anyone wishing to create this article should feel free to do so provided that they can come up with verifiable content. ☮Soap☮ 04:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OS X Lynx[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, this appears to be based on rumours and speculation from unreliable sources. The article should be recreated when official reliable sources are available direct from Apple or similar news. -- Patchy1 04:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes?--DudeTwo III (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was added a source which is reliable.--DudeTwo III (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have added is a reference to a blog, where even the source itself is questioning the accuracy. That kind of information is suited to blogs and forums, not an encyclopedia. -- Patchy1 04:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Patchy1.Move to name "OS X v10.9"--DudeTwo III (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rolandhelper. I've tagged the article as G5 as such. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 04:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(20694) 1999 VT82[edit]

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

Non notable asteroid, one of literally thousands being detected by modern telescopes. No references outside JPL database. Needs to be first detected by new equipment, huge or near earth etc to be notable. -MJH (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This asteroid is one of 300,000 minor planets listed here: [12]. Per WP:GNG - I could find no independent coverage from secondary sources, just database rows. 300,000 minor planets cannot each be notable. ---MJH (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) Secret ^account 05:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. By standard practice, if a catalogued asteroid lacks sufficient notability for an individual article, the page is converted into a redirect to the appropriate "minor planets" list, but never deleted. And the nom's notability criteria for astronomical objects appear to be their own invention. Despite the contrary !vote above, Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)#Dealing with minor planets rather explicitly calls for redirection rather than deletion if suitable references are insufficient to support n standalone article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy continue discussion with whatever outcome. Why should some opinion be so much valued so to shut up the possibility for any one else to comment? We are not all here all the time. Let it run. Oh! the asterioid seems quite non-notable, deleting is probably best, i see no use for 300,000 redirects either. WP is not the only source of information on the web, I presume the info is reasonably safe and accessible at JPL's databases - Nabla (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000 per WP:NASTRO and per the lack of sources that are both specific to this subject and in-depth about it. And I think the call for a speedy close is appropriate; we don't need to keep repeating the same discussion for the many articles of this type. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is ok to ask for a speedy close, but I disagree with it. Note that for me this is the first such discussion I can recall participating ever. If you speedy close, you close the doors to participation, WP should be open to more opinions, not closing them out. - Nabla (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Hullaballoo. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As much as I love astronomy, there is absolutely no reason to have up to 300,000 ten-word articles about space rocks with no notability of their own. Reywas92^Talk 01:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. A separate article isn't justified here. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is warranted after considering the alternatives.--Nixie9 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000 is the best option, as all the information in the current article is preserved in a useful table. Alternatively, we can and should make a bot to create 310,376 redirects or articles from List_of_minor_planets rather than dealing with this discussion each time ad infinitum. --Nixie9 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect per Hullaballoo and DGG comment on analogous debate. Nothing else to add, really, apart perhaps a read of WP:PILLARS: look at pillar number one, click on the link for almanac, read the article, and take your own conclusions. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Otazu[edit]

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

Article appears to technically satisfy WP:ATHLETE as one possibly-reliable source (BDFA) shows Otazu played 1 match in the Chilean second division. However, there is no sign this article would satisfy the general notability guideline (it has been on WP for over 1 year with no reliable sources and a search of on-line South American news sources like ABC Digital in his home country of Paraguay produce zero articles) and it has been on WP for over 1 year in this state. Let's use some common sense and remove it until the point comes that Otazu is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources such that we can write a decent article about him. Jogurney (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primarily fails WP:GNG, which outweighs WP:NFOOTBALL. Plenty of consensus in the past that 1/2 appearances are not enough to justify inclusion when an article fails GNG. Giant Snowman 15:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this pretty clearly falls under the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all articles that meet its criteria must be kept. The article only just passes WP:NSPORT, but clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL, there is no indication that the subject passes the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 16 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 Cascada. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Christmas Time (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM in all regards -MJH (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PROD'd it some time ago, but the PROD was removed and I never got back to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing really notable about this release... Causeandedit (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Cascada per standard practice where an album article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 09:22, 16 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

URTV 22[edit]

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

Not notable, college media production. Looks like it was created as a vanity article originally. Orphan, not updated, not notable per WP:GNG or about anything else. JoannaSerah (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ageing vanity article, search reveals nothing about this, no sources in article, clearly not notable. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks any worthwhile coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and unlikely to be of interest outside the university. --Michig (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W. Knutson[edit]

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

Resumes do not fulfill the notability. This article looks like a self published promotion and does not provide information on a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.55.220 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Monty ₈₄₅ 17:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above nomination was copied from the article talk page [13]. I am completing the nomination process on behalf the the IP editor. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The initial author seemingly was [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 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 00:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every reference fails basic verification. No indication of notability IRWolfie- (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography with no evidence of notability and none found. AllyD (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable autobiography. Buggie111 (talk) 16:23, 9 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 Mpemba effect. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erasto Mpemba[edit]

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

I nominate it for deletion. According to WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, Erasto is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nroets (talk • contribs) 22:14, November 29, 2012

Note The above was the edit summary of the editor who tagged the article for AfD. I have copied it here, and am completing the nomination process on the editor's behalf. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete Not really notable apart from the linked article about the Mpemba effect. That article covers some of this already. Just needs to either be deleted or any different info merged into the main article. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Move anything here to Mpemba effect that isn't already at that article. Make a redirect that leads to Mpemba effect if a user types in Erasto Mpemba. There already is a redirect if a user types in Mpemba. Gary (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mpemba effect. I don't really see anything worth merging. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 16 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 Daniel Amos. Reasonable search term (non-admin closure) ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 18:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction Through Film[edit]

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

Not a notable release. It has very little coverage in WP:RS to support an article on its own. It may be worth a mention at Daniel Amos, but a redirect is probably uncalled for because of the commonness/vagueness of the title. JFHJr (㊟) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone should attempt to improve it before it is simply deleted. The goal of Wikipedia used to be to constantly expand the amount of articles, not find any little reason to delete them. Audiori (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Amos. I can't find any evidence of notability: no reviews (maybe there are mentions in general articles on the band, but I've not seen any). If there is any sourceable information, it could be added to Daniel Amos. Right now, the best we can do is redirect so that if somebody searches for it they can at least find out who it's by. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Amos. Folowing User:Audiori's advice before coming here to opine, I gave the article a facelift.[15] But as widely released as this film is, I was unable to find any reviews or coverage. There were hints that the thing did receive some sort of positive attention,[16] but I was unable to find them. To enlighten our readers about the group, I believe that we can redirect for now and undelete if and or when sources come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daniel Amos. Lacks coverage but should redirect to where it's mentioned. --Michig (talk) 09:14, 16 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.

Corporate Group[edit]

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

This startup company doesn't seem to meet the guidelines outlined in WP:CORP, in addition to having been created by a sockpuppet account with a COI. (Hence, it's probably a CSD G5 candidate as well.) The reliable sources mentioned in the article seem to be focusing more on the CEO than the company. The rest of the sources are press releases or self-published sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G5. It's a page created by a blocked user, who was already blocked for socking. I'd also put a CSD nomination right on the page itself, before it went to AfD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:37, 9 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.