< 13 February	15 February >

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wright on Health[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No explanation of notability according to WP:WEB.

As noted in previous AfD, the "notability claims are insufficient: 'award-winning author' seems to refer to winning an essay prize (link is dead, so I'm not sure) and 'student of noted health policy expert' refers to someone with a red link. The blog does not appear to be mentioned by independent sources aside from other non-notable blogs. The only claim that might confer notability is "Wright on Health articles are slated to appear periodically on the popular internet news site The Huffington Post", but I don't see how this alone is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria."

The only keep argument in the last AfD was based on the now deprecated third criterion of WP:WEB.

--Claret Ash 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, there are two closely related articles here: this one and Brad Wright (blogger). For some reason this one is at AfD while the Brad Wright article has been prodded by the same nominator. It seems to me that both deserve discussion. I suppose we can weigh in on Brad Wright while discussing his blog; they are sufficiently entwined that discussing them both in one place may be acceptable. ~~But I would suggest the nominator consider listing the Brad Wright article here too and making this a dual nomination.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I should explain myself here. I originally intended to prod both articles. I didn't want to go to AfD because I expected the consensus would lean towards deletion (which it currently is) and I didn't see a reason to waste people's time by discussing a seemingly clear case (which, incidentally, was why prodding was introduced). The only reason this article is at AfD rather than being prodded is because it had already been prodded once and thus couldn't be re-prodded.

As for listing the other article here as well, I'd happily do so but have no idea how. I've only ever opened AfDs via Twinkle and don't know how to list a second article on an existing AfD. Can someone else add it please? Claret Ash 05:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another user has told you how to do it, on your talk page. But I'm withdrawing the suggestion. It turns out that people are evaluating and discussing both articles here even without officially listing both. If anyone thinks the Brad Wright article should be kept, they can go to that article and remove the PROD template, and then we can talk about nominating it for deletion if appropriate. And if nobody thinks it should be kept, the PROD will simply run its course. I'm afraid that trying to bring another article into this AfD at this point would mess up the 7-day timing that is supposed to be allowed for discussion, so let's just let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After research, Delete both articles (which have a lot of content in common in any case). The blog fails WP:WEB, the person fails WP:BIO. I could find no independent commentary about the blog, and it doesn't appear to be published at Huffington Post any more; the most recent Wright on Health column at the HuffPo was written in 2010. As for Wright himself, I could find no citations at Google Scholar or PubMed looking under DB Wright or D Brad Wright, and nothing at Google News Archive. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The distinctions described in the articles are insufficient to establish notability as a blogger, journalist, or academic. I added a search by url, and the blog only appeared in comments sections (three times with the word "my").Novangelis (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I can't find anything that suggests that the blog meets notability criteria outlined in WP:WEB or that the writer meets notability criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator please note: There is also a page Wright on health (with a small "h") which redirects to this page. If the result here is delete, the redirect page should be deleted also. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 18 February 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. Possible merging can be done through normal editorial processes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Wars (app)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A page about an app which claims no special notability. Not notable - fails notability guidelines - just another app. Only reference is its own listing in the app store. Very strong feeling that is just an advertisment. See also WP:B2B. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were some sources mentioned in the original AFD which are currently not in the article. I don't know if any of them are good enough but if they are they could be intergrated into the article.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gamevil per WP:Product. No established notability, quick RS search turned up nothing reliable. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect There can be more detail added if you decide to keep. However, if you decide to merge, I've already placed merge tags. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References now added from previous AFD. A412 (Talk • C) 06:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Could probably be argued to pass the GNG, but I think the content would be better off in the article of the parent company. Kevin (talk) 05:11, 23 February 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 speedily deleted under CSD G3. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillippe Camaro[edit]

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

Speedy deletion template removed multiple times by page creator. Unreferenced, non notable person, ideal speedy deletion candidate, but that process fails with this one. An IP only editor removed the template at one point. Submitting for AfD because that creates a better audit trail of what is happening Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stupidity. And block this SPA author for submitting fake articles. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is the sort of thing that needs to be nipped in the bud. Because Wikipedia is such a high-profile, heavily trafficked website, articles like these get picked up on search engines and mirrors quickly, and yet they linger long after the source article is deleted from Wikipedia. Before long, the subject of the article will be found all over the internet and people will be quoting it as fact. Get rid of this quickly! •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant hoax and I have tagged as such. Safiel (talk) 04:34, 15 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Glover[edit]

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

While the article makes claim of notability through the claiming of placing in national level competitions, thus keeping from being tagged as a Speedy Deletion, there are no references to show the individuals notability, and I can not find any reliable third party soruces on my own. Rorshacma (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 8 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no references on the page at all. If at a later date the creator (or another editor) wishes to request undeletion so s(he) can add references, I'd support that, but it should be deleted if it remains without references. - Jorgath (talk) 22:23, 14 February 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 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence to show this person ever existed. And block the SPA author for submitting hoax articles. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:02, 15 February 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 Pound_Puppies#Humans. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Stoneheart[edit]

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

Unremarkable television cartoon character - no notability outside the series, and no significant coverage found for the individual character. Provided sources are not reliable. Tried redirecting to the main series article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:30, 29 January 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 January 30. Snotbot t • c » 01:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. "Unremarkable" sums it up best. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the one ref to Pound Puppies, remove the rest as excessive plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pound_Puppies#Humans --Tgeairn (talk) 03:43, 17 February 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. Paolo Napolitano 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Kuo[edit]

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources, none found via Google Web or Google News. Huon (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable presenter and actress for TVB, and a previous winner of Miss Chinese International. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, no reliable sources found. DigitalC (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Systemic bias, WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

I don't disagree that Wikipedia has a systemic bias. However, Wikipedia's policy is that an article (especially a BLP) must be sourced with reliable sources. If you can provide such non-english sources, that would be a start. DigitalC (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: [1] Her official blog on TVB's website (TVB is a Hong Kong television station and its programmes are available by cable or satellite in Malaysia, Australia and Canada), and [2] a reference to her as the winner of the 2009 Miss Chinese International pageant. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

~~And here's the webpage for the 2009 results.[3] 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)~~blocked as sock[reply]

Neither her blog nor any other TVB websites are secondary sources on a TVB presenter. Huon (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. There is still no significant coverage in secondary sources. The pageant's own website is not a secondary source on pageant winners. Huon (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

) Struck repeated !vote; you may comment as many times as you wish but may only !vote once —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:08, 14 February 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, Der yck C. 21:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has been fixed.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Like it or not, clearly passes WP:ANYBIO#1 for her two winnings in notable competitions. And probably also passes WP:ENT#1 per her multiple television and film works. Cavarrone (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This line of reasoning would be more convincing if the pageant articles actually showed significant coverage in secondary sources. Right now the only reliable source for either her or the pageants is a single Toronto Chinese newspaper article, whicht arguably constitutes only local coverage. Huon (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to look for secondary sources about these competitions? ie, about Miss Chinese International: [4]. Cavarrone (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't, and since I can't read Chinese (and Google Translate seems to give at best a very rough translation that leaves much to be desired), I wouldn't be the best person to do so anyway. If you can tell which of those Google hits represent reliable secondary sources and what they say, please go ahead and improve the articles. Just pointing to a list of non-English search results isn't really helpful. Huon (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires that sources exist, not that they are actually included in the article. Cavarrone (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verifiability of meeting WP:ENT through career in film and television and WP:ANYBIO for pageant wins. While meeting WP:GNG is the easiest way to ascertain notability, it is not the only way. Non-English sources for a topic determinable as notable outside the West is perfectly fine for Wikipedia. Adressable issues are rarely cause for deletion of notable topics. User:Cavarrone has it correct, notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their being IN an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon You can visit the Wikipedia:Translators page. There are no English sources for her as she is based in Hong Kong, and outside of Hong Kong Chinese communities still use Chinese articles about her.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is apparent. Don't nominate just because WP:IDLI. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and probably a sock[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Concerns on notability exist with almost all parties in the discussion, yet a case is made that based on his record, we should really be able to presume notability. There is no consensus for that either, but, given the problem of systematic bias, it is a reasonable case. All in all there isn't a solid consensus either way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Onana[edit]

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

Contents is a translation of a French book, meaning that it's probably copyrighted. Furthermore, it is written by an involved person. See the author's comments on my talk page. Also, I'm not sure of notability. Jhschreurs (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links

[5] The book of Raphaël Onana in french.User talk:Warinhari

No copyrighted ! Check it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look in the picture of Raphaël Onana ? In reality he's got a lot of awards ! This article is being considered for deletion ????? I don't agree because it is not a children's story! Check it to the [6] ! contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a lot of heroes of Free French Forces ? To develop the Wikipedia in english, there's very very few cameroonians heroes ! Raphaël Onana is a perfect example ! If you delete the page of Raphaël Onana, I could believe a racist problem ! I don't see the reason to delete this nice page with the scarcity of Cameroonians Blacks heroes of world war II ! This character is not invented, it's a true story. So why to delete ? It's stupid. User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

[7] The real story of Raphaël Onana in french.
[8] The awards of Raphaël Onana. Contact them.
Raphaël Onana is the father of ten children Aggripine, Casimir, Etienne, Françoise, Jeanne, Lazare-Ékongo, Marie-Solange, Nathalie, Patrice and Zobo-Ostomac, they said me the story.
Contact the association "Unions fraternelles des anciens combattants d'expression Française".

PLEASE DON'T DELETE !!!! IT IS NOT A DANGEROUS PAGE BUT A MEMORY PAGE !!!!.............. User talk:Warinhari

Undecided. Content suggests that the subject should be notable, but there are valid concerns.

1. if the article is really a direct translation of the book used as its source, this is a copyright violation. The book *is* under copyright, whatever Warinhari says about it (although as a relative of its author we must consider the possibility he has a license to use its content). Assuming there is no license, the writing here must be original.

2. The book is an autobiography, and is therefore not an ideal source, as we require information from secondary sources in most cases (the book is a primary source). Warinhari, do you have any other books, newspaper articles, or other published sources you can use as sources for the article? JulesH (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The brand of the book of Raphaël Onana "Un homme blindé à Bir-Hakeim" is....you can see this page : [9] but there 's no english page for you ! Sorry !

His co-author, Patrice Etoundi-M'Balla [10], is a actually a journalist chronicles "Le Jour"[11] For example to Marcel Pagnol, he write HIS autobiography TOO same Raphaël Onana !!! If you delete the Raphaël Onana page, you must delete the Marcel Pagnol page or the Richard Wright (author) page, or others autobiographies !! No, no, no !??

In Cameroon, it is not a rich country... So the african writers with his more 3 or 10 books, is very very rare ! I think wikipedia should be less categorical about African writers who have do the World War II. A little respect for our heroes would be good !! Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Warinhari

~~Delete~~ Strong Delete and userfy; a quick search does not find sufficient reliable sources that would support notability via WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'M VERY ANGRY ! You are the draws ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU & WP:EQ

My reason for deletion has to do with the fact that I am unable to find significant references in third party reliable sources to indicate the subject of this article is notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Perhaps this article can be userfyied if you believe that it can be resurrected one day. There is no shame in it, I had to do it myself with an article that had significant coverage from multiple reliable sources once.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Highly decorated, but unclear how many of these awards are for gallantry and how many for distinguished service, as most French military decorations can be awarded for either. If they were all for gallantry then I'd say keep, if for distinguisnhed service then probably delete, as many long-service NCOs have decorations for distinguished service. The fact he's Cameroonian is irrelevant unless he was the most highly-decorated Cameroonian soldier in French service, in which case he is notable. Whatever we decide, it's an appallingly-written article and needs a serious copyedit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Bir Hakeim finished in the 11th June 1942. So Raphaël has sacrificed his leg to win the battle, and you want to delete his page because he did not do much ? Would you like I cut your leg same Raphaël ? Raphaël was not a french before 1951 but a Cameroonian ! it happened things ! Raphaël is highly decorated, yes, you can call the Palais de la Légion d'Honneur or [12] to check ! User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You need to calm down Warinhari. This is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Not every soldier who's been wounded or decorated is notable in encyclopaedic terms. We need to establish whether this man was significant enough to have an article on Wikipedia, not whether he was a worthy individual, which he clearly was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know how Charles De Gaulle was an Anglophobia, but it is not the reason to delete the page of Raphaël Onana who is a writer for one book like per example Richard Wright. You lack respect of MY grandfather because he's a vulgar Black African ? Raphaël is a important character only in Cameroon ! And In Cameroon, at Bamenda and at Buea, they speak and write english like you ! So the camerounian who use english in the north-west can read the Raphaël Onana page ! I could not calm down ! User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, the racist card. You cannot accuse people of racism because they oppose the inclusion of an article on an African person. Africans have no more or less right to have articles about them than anyone else. The other editors who have posted comments here are being objective, not racist. You, however, are being subjective. He's your grandfather, so you think he's worthy of an article. Others have questioned that assumption. This isn't on racist grounds, but on the same grounds of notability applied to any other article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so what ? User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

How we, as an editing community, determine if someone is notable is clearly spelled out in WP:GNG, and in this case WP:BIO is relevant. The criteria have to be meet by looking at references from reliable sources. No where within GNG or BIO is the race, ethnicity, or where the subject was born (or originated) a factor in determining notability.

If there are third party reliable sources, in any language, that can be provided to support that the subject of the article is notable per GNG, BIO, or WP:SOLDIER please let us know. Otherwise the article will be deleted from the mainspace, and if it the wish of the primary editor, it can be userfied.

If an editor is related to the subject of this article, there maybe conflict of interest issues that need to be looked into.

Additionally please see WP:EQ again, and remember to remain civil. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, although if what is in the article is correct, the subject of this article maybe notable per WP:SOLDIER, I cannot find a third party source verifying the awarding of the Legion of Honor to the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand... You want sources , you have enough sources ! You've got 5 ! I think you can find sources mainly in this [13] , the brand book of Raphaël Onana.

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

[14] The real story of Raphaël Onana in french.
[15] The awards of Raphaël Onana. Contact them.
Raphaël Onana is the father of ten children Aggripine, Casimir, Etienne, Françoise, Jeanne, Lazare-Ékongo, Marie-Solange, Nathalie, Patrice and Zobo-Ostomac, they said me the story.
Contact the association "Unions fraternelles des anciens combattants d'expression Française".
[16]

I can not insulted you, but I've scolded you... Because I know you're wrong ! Raphaël Onana was famous only in Cameroon therefore he's a important person between the world war II at 1996 FOR the Cameroon and not for to you and persons who speak English. User talk:Warinhari

What language I speak has no relevance to this discussion. One last time, and you have already been warned before, please stop attacking those who disagree with your opinion of your family member's notability.

Thanks for the links. The first link, a book coauthored by the subject of the article in question is not sufficient to meet notability requirements set forth in WP:AUTHOR. The second link does not appear to have an easily find-able listing of the subject of the article; furthermore, there have been past discussions of what awardings of the Legion of Honor create notability per WP:SOLDIER given its wide range of rewarding criteria. As for your third link it is to a publishing company; again, the subject of the article just because they are published doesn't automatically make one notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not have five sources. We have one, an autobiography. That is not enough to establish notability, since self-authored sources are not generally regarded as reliable. He won the Légion d'honneur. Nobody is disputing that, but so did many, many thousands of other people. The Légion d'honneur by itself is not sufficient to establish notability, any more than decorations like the MBE or Military Cross would be in Britain. The fact his children told you his story is irrelevant: we only accept actual published sources as proof of notability (and not, as already stated, self-authored works or works published by those with a vested interest). He was a veteran. So what? So are many millions of others. And he was "famous in Cameroon". With the best will in the world, we only have your word for that, and no actual proof. None of these things are sufficient to establish notability. Your claim for his notability seems to come down to the fact that he was a decorated veteran and you say he's notable. This is not, I'm afraid, sufficient evidence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Raphael Onana is interesting to read, is not it? Please take care of you uninteresting articles also. I ask simply you to keep my article everything as it does not disturb the public.User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

See -> * [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOT invented in this article, I simply wrote all the facts noted in the Yellow Book of Raphael Onana. I have not made a cut and pasted from the book to wikipedia, I have summarized my way. User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC). Warinhari (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why you keep linking us to the webpage on the same book. We know it exists. We know he existed. Neither of these facts add up to proof of notability for this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these facts add up to proof of notability for this article ??? You're not right. And the testimony of the deported Jews during world war II ??? Neither of These facts add up to proof of notability for this article too? The jews were simple civilians ! Raphaël Onana is a witness of the war, too! He's the only Cameroonian to express! Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

His book is a straightforward testimony of the war, go read it yourself from start to finish! Warinhari (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC) You'll add that I took out the anti-Semite card? Warinhari (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG & WP:BIO.

It is the opinion of two commenting editors that the subject of the article does not meet them.

Retorts have violated WP:CIVIL in the past, and new responses have not provided new references from reliable sources to indicate that the subject of the article meets notability per the GNG & BIO, therefore I change my recommendation to Strong Delete & Userfy. G'day! --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ? And so what ? talk

Delete. Despite good faith attempts to elicit the reasons why this decorated veteran should be considered more notable than any of the countless other decorated veterans in world history, the creator, who is related to Onana, has done nothing but continually point to an autobiography and claim that Onana is notable because he says he is. He has become increasingly aggressive, rude and incapable of courteously responding to any constructive criticism. Given this, the poor English of the article and the fact that no other sources can be found, I don't think we have any option but to delete without prejudice. Onana appears to have been a worthy gentleman and a good soldier, but I see no evidence that he is any more notable than any other decorated veteran of the French army. Given evidence that he is (e.g. his decorations were unusually high or he was the most highly decorated Cameroonian soldier in French service) then the article can be recreated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete? It's very very stupid. Therefore, the testimony of the deported Jews are also to be deleted too ? If you think the english is bad in the Rapahël Onana page, so this article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. Help me for that. The english is bad, but, you forgot i'm french and not an english... Je ne vous remercie pas du tout de votre charmant accueil en me proposant de supprimer cette page...! talk

May I suggest therefore you stick with the article on French Wikipedia! After all, I wouldn't attempt to write an article in French, a language with which I only have passing familiarity. This is something that continually mystifies me - why do people who do not write very good English insist on writing articles on English Wikipedia as well as (or instead of) the Wikipedia in their own native language? I have no idea why you keep mentioning the Jews. In what way are they relevant to an article about a French soldier? The point is not that we are discounting Onana's testimony, but that we don't feel he's notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. There is a world of difference. Just because someone writes their memoirs, even if they are published, it doesn't make them automatically notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Despite the long discussion so far, this AfD will clearly benefit from some advice from editors who are fluent in both English and French, and can assess the French article and its accompanying sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 21:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Keep- My French has 25 years of rust on it, so I ran it through babelfish and compared simultaneously, so: 1) The fr. article has no references, just an external link to the book. 2) The book is autobiographical, but co-authored with a fr. notable Cameroon journalist 3) Highest award, but lowest level, multiple other French awards, none of which are awarded solely for valor 4) Officier de l'Ordre national du Cameroun, not Cameroon's Order of Valor, but we lack articles on both 5) Rank insufficient to independently meet WP:SOLDIER, but due to systemic historical bias of the period (not just France/Cameroon), although also short service due to amputation 6) Made a French citizen 7) "Raphaël was invited to the Élysée Palace by the French Republic president, Charles de Gaulle, in December 1962 in order to decorate Raphaël Onana for the National Order of the Legion of Honor and also other merits." Since quoted conversing, went, and personally awarded, likely meets WP:GNG, as coverage surely exists of this state function, even if only in record archives. 8) Co-authored a personal recollection of a notable period and battle. The article currently fails verification and independent sources, unless www.legiondhonneur.fr posts his awards online, our contacting them would be original research; if kept, could only be done under WP:IAR, taking the multiple high level awards, systemic biases, and likely offline references into account. Dru of Id (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9) Elected president of the War Veterans of Cameroon. Dru of Id (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. The fact that the corresponding article on the French Wikipedia has existed for over 4 years at fr:Raphaël Onana is a good sign in favor of the subject's notability. On the other hand, this article has no sources other than the subject's own autobiography and no significant ones have been provided in this discussion, and the article needs improvement in terms of its translation from French. So let's take it out of the mainspace and allow it to be improved before bringing it back. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of claims about this person, but no references whatsoever to back them up. As such, WP:BIO isn't met. The article on the French Wikipedia also isn't referenced, and I'm pretty sure that we have higher standards than they do anyway. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are severe, you, the British ... I'm tired of your criticism. You are doing exactly the same as policy makers to right hand drive of your car just to annoy foreigners .... In short, I think it's not nice to you. I reject totally the page of Raphael Onana removed, but you can delete unnecessary phrases and unproven. For the history of jews, it is just a comparison . you had not got it before? Warinhari (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:CIVIL, you have been warned multiple times in the past, and I have added a warning on your talk page. Additional violations of CIVIL may lead to referral to RfC. I implore you to stop violating CIVIL so it does not reach that point. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warinhari, please read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND (and also, regarding the "this is a memory page" comment above I just noticed, WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Your conduct here is not conducive to the collaborative building of an encyclopedia, and if it continues, you may very well be blocked from editing. Wikipedia, and its editors, are not personally out to get you or to dishonor your ancestors; we are here to establish a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia that uses reliable sources to cover notable topics; "The Truth" has to be verifiable to be included. Wikipedia operates on a basis of consensus of its users; based on the discussion above, the consensus of Wikipedia editors, based on Wikipedia's policies, appears, so far, to be that Raphaël Onana cannot be verified as being significantly notable to be included given the sources provided. This isn't a personal slight against him or you; it's simply the way it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deletion contributes to systematic bias Because of our rules on ranks of military personnel deemed notable, it's difficult to usually consider non-commissioned officers for retention. However, if we delete this article, we are merely continuing our WP:Systemic Bias against African subjects. The history of the armies of Africa through the colonial period is written partially by the lives of its African NCOs, and to make sure we try to improve our coverage of African subjects, then I strongly believe we should be prepared to vary our strict MILPERS rules. However, the section on Onana's father is not notable, in my view. This is apart from Warinhari's conduct, for which he is rightly being counseled. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability per WP:SOLDIER, IMHO, would be difficult as the level of the Legion of Honor awarded is "Officer", if the image used in the article is accurate. In our discussions regarding applying SOLDIER to Legion of Honor recipients, there appeared to have formed a consensus that it was for the highest military awarding only. That being said, consensus can change, and there is an active discussion about this point, at this time. This topic can be revisited.

If such a discussion were to begin, perhaps this AfD can be placed on hold until there is confirmation that the old Consensus still stands, or if consensus has changed since March 2011.

For unless there is a change in consensus, I have so far not seen any significant tertiary reliable sources to believe the subject passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RightCowLeftCoast, thanks for your comments. However those involved who are frequently referring to WP:SOLDIER and various other military guidelines appear to be missing the distinguishing argument of Dru of Id and I: this is a WP:Systemic Bias issue. We have vanishingly nothing on Africa on this encyclopedia compared to several of the other continents, and even more vanishingly nothing on the non-Western, non-colonial presence in Africa. Both Dru of Id and I are saying that this article deserves to stay to try to help remedy, in a very small way, this bias. This is the argument we are making, which does not hinge on the rules you are quoting - it refers to other factors. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I am completely opposed to systemic bias, I don't think we should apply notability criteria more favourably towards people from less-represented countries. Avoidance of systemic bias merely means we should apply the criteria equally and not delete articles because there is less documentary evidence, not that we should give people from these nations more preferential treatment. What we should ask is: Would we keep an article on a European NCO of the French army who had identical awards and service? I would say the answer to this question is almost certainly no. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing wrong....Warinhari (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC) ~ I want you to do me a partial deletion. Please. Warinhari (talk) 16:08, 16 February 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. henrik•talk 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Start, Considering[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The author doesn't have an article. This is a non-notable book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reliable third party sources that help establish notability for this book. Likewise, while trying to establish notability of the author, I also came up blank. Rorshacma (talk) 20:11, 17 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Bandicoot Returns[edit]

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

As much as I love games, this one is "paused in development" for a lack of development team, and needs to be paused from having an article for a lack of notability at this stage. Sorry, just not notable as a stand alone mod at this time. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Crash Bandicoot (series) main article. - Jorgath (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest merging. This is an independent Mod, not an actual supported version. This is one guy's dream to make another "level", with no references, so nothing to merge and redirecting would be pointless since they are not remotely the same thing, same company, same anything. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this is a fan made game that was never even made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would be awesome if he could finish it though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 15 February 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) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, unreleased/unfinised fan game. The only sources I could find that were reliable merely said the game existed, no actual real coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing, not notable, and as noted by nominator, not even completed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FANCRUFT. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a Blatant hoax. No sources to support.--ETLamborghini (talk) 00:33, 22 February 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. Paolo Napolitano 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Østfoldbadet[edit]

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

Deprodded with a "seems clearly notable to me", but I still find no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is something very strange about this. First of all, the first two external links on the page come up with 404 Not Found. Second, this park is not covered in either of the Norwegian Wikipedias (no and nn). Third, the size of the park is given as 2390 square meters, which is about 25,000 square feet, or a little over 1/2 acre. Yet the article says that there that there are four pools and a changing room for 550 people (in 1/2 acre!). I cannot read the Norwegian references, so cannot confirm any of the info. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 404 problem is just an outdated link, I suspect; here is the English website. More than 100 references come up at GNews, in Norwegian. I sent a few of these to Google Translate and they do seem to confirm the content of the article. Will list this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Norway to see if anyone has insight on whether this is a significant swim complex.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added 5 newspaper references, which should end any question of notability. A news search in Atekst (Norwegian offline newspaper) gave 214 hits, so there is loads more to take of. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the new sources, and the fact that the King himself opened it. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:58, 14 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nal Stop[edit]

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

Deprodded because it's in a navbox. Seriously, I have no idea what this even is. Is a road junction notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some road junctions are notable, but not this one. --Rs chen 7754 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It does appear to exist, and from what I gather it is a very polluted place...but I doubt that makes it notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and burn with fire. Some road junctions are notable (Spaghetti Junction, Malfunction Junction...). This is not one of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I was a bit amused to see a congested, but utterly non-notable junction in Pune having a page of its own .

trakesht (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete JamesBWatson (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Bailey[edit]

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

BLP on a model / music video talent. The only current reference is to IMDb (there are two deadlink references). I searched quite a bit, and while there is significant coverage in unreliable sources (modeling agency sites, blogs, self-published materials, etc.) there is basically no coverage in reliable sources. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Main editor has added refs from Chickipedia which certainly is not reliable. Being in an eight episode reality show or in music videos doesn't confer nobility. I'm also unable to find any reliable sources. However, her name is very popular in Google searches. Couple of realtors, a USC student, a Disney employee and a Porn actress show up for me in the top 30. So, I may have missed something related to her. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Article asserts a notability through this person having "worked with some of the biggest names in the industry." While she may well have done the numerous music videos, magazine spreeads and television appearances claimed in the article, we do not have reliable sources verifying the information, nor speaking about the individual directly or in detail. This gives us a failed BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt and Bgwhite (above). This one undoubtedly appears to fall short of our notability requirements. -- WikHead (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United States Senate election in Nevada, 2012. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Ellsworth[edit]

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

Person is not worthy of a wikipedia article. He is of no significance. Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You say "he is of no significance", which I have to disagree with. Ellsworth founded a green energy company from his home in Las Vegas in 2004 that has grown to become the fourth largest ethanol producer in the world, employing approximately 640 people nationwide.[18] This information has been included now at the beginning of the article. Along with him being a current candidate for a seat with the U.S. Senate in Nevada makes him notable in my humble opinion. OSU1980 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Nevada, 2012 as the current biography fails WP:POLITICIAN because he is an unelected candidate and all of the references pertain to his current Senate campaign. That article about the election is the place where all candidates for this seat can receive neutral, balanced coverage. If Ellsworth is independently notable as an energy company executive, then that needs to be demonstrated with reliable sources that discuss him as an energy company executive instead of as a political candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Gene; this is the usual outcome of candidates who have no other prior evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 February 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Nevada, 2012 - As an unelected candidate, Ellsworth does not pass WP:POLITICIAN, so should be deleted. If he is elected in the future, then an article will be merited; until then, a redirect will suffice.
Merge and Redirect per above. - Jorgath (talk) 20:46, 14 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pool300[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day, but for things that are the subject of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. I see no evidence of the latter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to suggest that this is notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage anywhere AFAICT to suggest that WP:GNG can be met. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this were notable—and I see no indication that it is—Wikipedia is not a game guide. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:N and WP:NFT and WP:COI. It's completely routine to summarize the rules of games in game articles, so WP:GAMEGUIDE isn't really applicable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:54, 20 February 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. henrik•talk 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scribefire[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Notability (web) and too short. All references, I have searched, are in some blogs, that are not reliable sources. Also there is only links to the official site and source code in the article. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources which would establish this as being more notable than every other Firefox extension that exists. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is in violation of the WP:BLP policy by its clear intent to air dubious defamatory allegations regarding a living person. Although ostensibly an account of the court case in question, it is clearly a WP:COATRACK to provide extended coverage of the unsubstantiated - and subsequently discredited - allegations of abuse and tax-evasion that were the subject of the libel action. Both of these topics are already covered in at least adequate (arguably excessive) detail in the Werner Erhard biographical page itself. This article serves no purpose apart from causing further embarassment by drawing attention to the original accusations with an implied "no smoke without fire" innuendo. The court case itself is insignificant and was withdrawn before ever reaching a hearing.

Although this article has previously been nominated for deletion unsuccesfully, I suggest that it merits further consideration in the light of the Arbcom decision to sanction and de-sysop the editor who created it for numerous violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (many of them in relation to the individual disparaged here), under both that user name and previous ones. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs#Final_decision. DaveApter (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, not this again. We went through this all last time and you've brought up nothing that is a new argument. The case was covered extensively within the press and I don't see the BLP issues with the article that you're discussing. If there's writing issues, then change them, but the court case is extremely notable and deserves its own article. Just because an article discusses a negative issue in regards to a living person doesn't mean that it is a BLP violation. Silver seren^C 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add that the text that was an issue, the background section, was removed way back in May. Silver seren^C 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Rather than delete, rewrite. There probably should be an article on this subject, but it needs to be one that doesn't violate WP:COATRACK or WP:BLP. Alternatively， this case should be briefly mentioned in the article about Mr. Erhard, if there is one (and if there isn't, is this court case sufficient for him to be notable?) or in the Columbia Broadcasting System article. - Jorgath (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one and I don't know if he is notable for an article on himself. There is certainly a heck of a lot of primary sources in his article. Silver seren^C 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lawsuit lasted only 2 months and never resulted in a decision or precedent. It just isn't independently notable enough to warrant it's own article. And yes, the material in this article is already handled in the Werner Erhard article and has been for some time. This article about the lawsuit began as a WP:COATRACK by an editor who has since been sanctioned for creating these sorts of biased articles about this individual. This article was an attempt to give new life to old allegations that never were anything more than allegations. This is unduly harmful to a living person and against the spirit of WP:BLP. Given that there is no notability to the lawsuit itself, and that the material is handled in the Werner Erhard article already, there is no justification for keeping this article. --MLKLewis (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then, per MLKLewis. I've gone back over the article with MLKLewis's response in mind, and found several instances where, at the very least, the wording is problematic for WP:NPOV. As long as the case gets relatively significant treatment in the main Werner Erhard article, I see no reason why the case should be kept as a separate article. - Jorgath (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As long as the case is already covered in the article about the individual, that should be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecoveringAddict (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting parallel to AfD for John Kerry VVAW controversy. In each case, a POV editor who didn't like a living person was responsible for the creation of an article designed to air allegations against that person, despite sufficient coverage of the allegations in the original article. I'm also less sold on notability than I was previously, since most of the sources are about the allegations, not the lawsuit, which was withdrawn quickly. Seems like a classic coatrack strategy: since discredited allegations would never stand on their own as an article subject, create an article about a related lawsuit, and throw all the allegations in. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Per WP:GNG, there seem to be many reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTT can someone see that this is added to all the deletion discussions lists that the first AFD was added to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out how to do it myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems that the entirety of the article is really contained in the lede. A case was filed, then withdrawn by the plaintiff. The remainder of the article (and most or all of the sources but for the primary source of the filing history) are allegations by one side or the other which were not resolved in the case (as it was withdrawn). Those allegations already have attention in the article on Mr. Erhard (and I note that it appears most or all allegations were withdrawn at some point). I agree as above that this article takes a non-notable lawsuit (filed and withdrawn with no documented notable impact) and uses it as a WP:COATRACK to expand on the allegations and avoid the scrutiny of WP:BLP that those same expansions would incur if placed in the WP:BIO article. If this article weren't already here at AfD, I would be inclined to speedy-remove the majority of it as WP:BLP violation. Lastly, searches of web content for the case only find mirrors and a single book which is simply a bound edition of this article and others from Wikipedia on this subject. The existence of that book only serves to further argue for strict adherence to BLP policies, even on non-BIO articles. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:10, 17 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SigmaQuest[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources about this company; no evidence of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced article about a Product Performance Intelligence (PPI) company.... SigmaQuest uses the On-demand model of software delivery also known as Software as a service. Christ deliver us. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RS found for WP:N. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:20, 17 February 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 speedily deleted pursuant to CSD A10. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usable security: tips for users[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOR. Article is non-encyclopedic in scope and appears to be an original work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article reads like an essay/how-to manual. I don't see anything salvageable here.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Rorshacma (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, essay-like, unreferenced, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear example of WP:OR. DaveApter (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A10 as a duplicate of Computer security and I have tagged as such. Safiel (talk) 00:37, 15 February 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 ITV Weather. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Blythe[edit]

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

Weatherpersons are not inherently notable, and this one is not exherently notable either. No hits in Google News, and not a single reliable source in the article to establish notability. Check the article's history to see what counted as "references" for this BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: local weather people? Really? There's no claim of notability here, just that the person is a local weather person. So what? The person who delivers my mail is a local postal service person. That doesn't make him eligible for an article here. Contrast against Jim Cantore. Now he is a weather person of note. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but who's cuter? Drmies (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Blythe was a relief presenter for the ITV National weather for 2 years and has presented the regional weather in 6 different regions. She is hardly an unknown. Type 'Jo Blythe' in to YouTube and you get more videos coming up than for some national weather presenters. The claim made by Drmies that a You Tube video of Jo Blythe doing a UK national weather forecast not verifying the fact that she has done national weather forecasts is a load of rubbish. Maybe Drmies doesn't know what a map of the UK looks like, so can't verify what a UK national weather forecast is. Although, I agree that You Tube links shouldn't be references.

The link of http://www.lmu.ac.uk/the_news/matters/matters_aug05.pdf is a relaible source. www.lmu.ac.uk goes to the official Leeds Metropolitan University website. However, it looks like they have decided to remove a 7 year old document stating that she was a notable graduate from the website. The link of http://www.itv.com/granada/meettheteam goes to the official ITV website. Epm-84 (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting Drmies with statements like "Maybe Drmies doesn't know what a map of the UK looks like" is not likely to help your case that Jo Blythe is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please read and abide by WP:NPA. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm more baffled by the suggestion in the article (now removed) that a still of someone standing in front of a UK weather map is to be taken as evidence that "She became a regional weather presenter for ITV in 2001, covering the Yorkshire, Granada, Tyne Tees and Border regions". I mean, this is high in cuteness but a bit short on words, and the same goes for this one, Tonight/Dry?itv/weather. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who knows which region covers which areas or uses the map available on the ITV website: http://www.itv.com/local/ they can at least see from those two images that Jo is doing a Yorkshire region forecast in one of the images and a Granada region forecast on the other image, although not ideal references as they don't confirm the 2001-2008 dates. Following those links through to their respective websites shows more images and videos available which makes the chance of them being photoshopped is vastly reduced. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see this passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO using the references put forward in the article (history). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a presenter on a television channel is not inherently notable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK Hammersoft maybe that remark was over the top but to me, as a UK based ITV viewer, that You Tube link tells me instantly that Jo Blythe has done ITV National Weather forecasts. It's a typical lunchtime/weekend format using the standard ITV branding from a couple of years ago, it's not something that could have been created in someone's bedroom.

It does seem to me that the only reason this article is being considered for deletion is because of the most reliable independent link in the references no longer being live. The article has been there for 6 years and Jo Blythe had been doing weather forecasts for 5 years when the article was first written. Even now there's more reliable references on the Jo Blythe article than the Emma Jesson or the Eno Eruotor articles. (Jo is also much better known than Eno) The Emma Jesson article has had the "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification." there since 2010 so surly should be considered for deletion first.Epm-84 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really fair to compare this article against others that exist and argue this one should exist because it's better than those. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. We don't consider articles for deletion in order of which one is worst, and that one goes first. We'd never hear the end of disputes about which one is worse :) That she's a weather reporter isn't in dispute. I think we all agree she's a weather reporter. The question is how is she notable? Without reliable, secondary sources attesting to her notability, there's nothing to conclude she's notable except that she's a weather reporter. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also nominated the two weather persons mentioned by Epm-84 for deletion. As far as I'm concerned they could have been nominated for speedy deletion, but there's no rush. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources in the article, and I couldn't find any either. I don't think this person passes the GNG. pablo 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She doesn't appear to pass GNG, but what amazes me is to find this article in French, which could suggest she has notability beyond our shores. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of English universities take large groups of French students on exchange years, it is possible that some of those French students decided to add TV personalities from England to the French Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Jo didn't get much media coverage when she provided cover for the national weather as the media were more interested in the surfing accident suffered by the person she was standing in for, than who was standing in. On a different occasion she would have got more media coverage for doing national forecasts. Hstudent (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better references have been added. She has been on television screens for over 10 years now and while she is seen as a local weather person, she has done local weather for 6 regions i.e. half of England and has quite often appeared in different regions in the same week, as well as doing national forecasts for two years. She could easily become a regular national weather presenter in the foreseeable future and then someone would have to create the article all over again. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She could become a national weather presenter? I think WP:SPECULATION applies. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not adding speculation on the actual article, just on a discussion page, in view of the fact that one event would probably change the status of the article from being considered for deletion to not being considered for deletion. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - If she's presenting in several regions then that makes her fairly notable. The ITV Weather articles shows her to have been a national presenter from 2006-2008, and now working at Granada, so perhaps a redirect ito something like ITV Weather would be appropriate here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect to ITV Weather. No real demonstration of actual notability in the article's references, merely verification that she is who the article claims. She's supposed to be a national-level presenter? All I'm finding after a quick Google search are some YouTube bloopers and forum posts, there's a complete absence of coverage to the standards we expect. DeLarge (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, but she appears to have been a substitute on a national show and a star locally. That's by definition not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. For the record, I would have punched this on the 14th and not have made a 3d relist. Since the only 2 "keep" !voters have not addressed the issue of notability, I'm closing this NC. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kulim Lake Garden[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. not all parks are notable. nothing in gnews [19]]. run of the mill park and unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:25, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:13, 14 February 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 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After more than ~~two~~ three silent weeks there pretty clearly there is no taste among AfD participants for a purge of unsourced articles on parks. Is Wikipedia better off with or without this? The former, I think. Carrite (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO, this should have been procedurally closed after seven days, WP:NPASR. Now that it has sat here this long, a Keep is proper as a speedy renomination is not now in order. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment none of these keep votes address how a notability guideline is met. If I prodded this, this would have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 17 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jannareddy[edit]

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

Non-notable family made up of a list of non-notable people, sourced to a book which just says they exist at the place the article says they come from. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:57, 27 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 January 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, Wifione ^Message 04:44, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:10, 14 February 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 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 17:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I, too, can find nothing of note. Other such communities of the Reddy caste do have sources and so this is odd. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 17 February 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 G12. Non-admin closure as the closing admin (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) forgot to close the discussion. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Board for Direct Taxes[edit]

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

Entire article is in violation of copyright. Was nominated for speedy deletion twice. Too technical for most readers to understand. Requires immediate attention. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 15 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okan Derici[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It was restored on the grounds that Mr. Derici has made an appearance in the Turkish Cup. However, this was a qualifying fixture against a Third division club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4. Sufficiently identical copy of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. The criteria for previous deletion still apply. Cloudz 679 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was just restored following a speedy deletion, so G4 is out of order. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate because the article still doesn't meet WP:N and as a secondary consideration, I feel a qualifying round of a national cup does not meet WP:FOOTYN. It does however look like this player may warrant a page in the near future. Cloudz 679 13:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page can be restored at the click of a button. Giant Snowman 17:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like he doesn't meet WP:FOOTY's criteria, although he's getting pretty close. This'll probably be ok to restore in a few months or so. Maybe the article creator would like it userfied until it can be restored to mainspace? DeLarge (talk) 21:49, 23 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Sheehan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP on a self-published author. NYT covers his search for a quiet apartment, not his accomplishments as an author. AGF for the offline "Writer Magazine" article, but this article is the only WP:RS coverage of this author, and as such, does not satisfy the plurality of sources required by the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The second source (Writers Magazine) is good, but the first source is more concerned with apartments and using Sheehan's search as an example than it is about Sheehan as a writer. This is not the type of coverage that is needed to pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:GNG. Generally speaking, when you have to use Amazon as a source that means that there's not much notability there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should have been speedied as a previously deleted non-notable subject. In fact, it should be speedied now. It should then be salted so that other editors aren't forced to waste their time with this WP:ADVERT in the future. I've looked for WP:RS to satisfy WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR and have come up with absolute bupkis. There is apparently no such thing as "Writer Magazine" or "Writers Magazine," and in any case it's difficult to believe that the guy's book would be trumpeted by any magazine as a "self-publishing success story" when its Amazon ranking is a paltry 519,630. A closing admin should save us time and speedy this off the face of the Internet right now and then make liberal use of the salt shaker. Qworty (talk) 04:04, 16 February 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 Arrested Development (TV series) per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bluth Company[edit]

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

There are no sources mentioned in the article and it appears to be entirely made up of original research (with some plot elements). The show it is associated with (Arrested Development) is certainly notable but I was unable to find any significant coverage of just the Bluth Company to justify keeping this article. SQGibbon (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references Wikishagnik (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell you added one external link that is a review about the third season and not specifically about the Bluth Company. The second reference is to TV.com which is not a reliable source. And the third link to the Palm Beach Post article had nothing to do with the Bluth Company in this article. Even if these were good references nothing was done to connect them to any of the content in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked at the references Wikishagnik added, and I concur with SQGibbon as to their pertinence and reliability. As such, the article cites no reliable sources for verifiability and fails the notability guideline. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 1, 2, 3 from google Books and 1, 2, 3, 4 Google News Archive, there are plenty of independent RS mentions. The San Jose Mercury News reference, added and inappropriately removed above, is also a good mention. Not all of them are non-trivial, but they all demonstrate that the fictional element, the company, is discussed as a separate entity. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Bluth Company is a central part of the premise of Arrested Development there are going to be thousands upon thousands of mentions of it throughout the Internet. The trick is finding significant discussions just about the company from reliable sources. The first link you provided (the book Arrested Development and Philosophy: They've Made a Huge Mistake) is a book of pop-cultural essays about Arrested Development so of course the Bluth Company is going to be mentioned throughout. Looking at the glossary it looks like one chapter might be about the Bluth Company ("Family First: How Not to Run a Business") but I don't have that book so it's not clear. It's also not clear that anything mentioned in that chapter has anything to do with what's in the current article. The next two books appear to be trivial mentions of the Bluth Company (again mentioned as part of the premise for Arrested Development) and as such do not go to establishing notability. The A.V. Club link is to a review that mentions the company but does not go into any detail about it in a way that's useful for an article. The USA Today article is similar. The Goliath link is not freely-available (but free to read if you join the site) so I can't read it but the abstract does not make it clear to me that the article is an in-depth discussion about the Bluth Company qua Bluth Company. The most interesting link is the one from Forbes. However it is a tongue-in-cheek advice column for how to run a business and otherwise merely relates some specific plot points from the show. In the end I do not think any of this establishes notability with certainty (again, without access to some of this material it's difficult to say). But I guess some of the difficulty is trying to establish what the article should be about if preserved. Right now it's the overall evolution of the company in-universe. Perhaps with enough work we could find enough reviews that would allow someone to piece together the history of the company that way and produce a well-sourced article. Maybe? Or if the article should be more of a critical assessment from outside the universe of Arrested Development then the article from Forbes might be useful (even though it's more of a humor piece than anything) and possibly the sources mentioned above that I don't have access to. Maybe those sources could be converted into a good article but until someone does this that's all hypothetical which I don't think goes to establishing notability and does not help with the current problems of original research. If the article was just reduced to the basic facts (the company owned by the family portrayed in Arrested Development) then we wouldn't need the article and could just add that line to the AD article. SQGibbon (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arrested Development (TV series), as I can't see how this could be developed in a proper article with significant real-world info etc. If this fictional element was really so relevant for the series, the company's development might as well be described in Arrested Development (TV series)#Plot. Nothing directly to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:38, 14 February 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, Der yck C. 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Arrested Development (TV series). It's a fork. And one more thing~~ — I am definitely gonna make a T-shirt using that logo. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a legitimate need for this as a sub-page of an already very long main page on Arrested Development. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and a pop-culture compendium and we should revel in the excellence of the latter. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arrested Development (TV series). This serves as a fine redirect, and the salient content is actually already in the article on the show, in the various season plot sections. Frankly, the Bluth Company article just regurgitates plot points that focus on the Company. I am a huge fan of the show, but there is minimal evidence of independent notability for the Bluth Company, certainly nothing that suggests it needs its own article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:39, 14 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic Thinking[edit]

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

Neologism. Aside from cleanup issues, which i have not yet attempted, I could not find sufficient references to the phrase. (gsearch is 700 not 7000). some use does exist, but its coinage in this manner is about 12 years old. previous use of the phrase, of course, was in reference to actual symphony composition. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference in the PsycINFO article database. Google Scholar returns only the one article mentioned, which is an unpublished white-paper. It seems like it is a term coined by author Dan Pink that never received widespread usage. Seems like a "cutesy" expression to refer to a broader point that Pink was trying to make, rather than one with any academic usage behind it. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 29 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relist for the last time. If still nobody responds then this article should be deleted per WP:PROD thinking.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Story of Film: An Odyssey. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featured in A Story of Film: An Odyssey[edit]

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

Main article is a redlink, PROD denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much use in a list of films featured in a single documentary series if the documentary itself doesn't merit an article. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's indeed odd that this megalist has been created without a companion article about the documentary itself, but in fact Mark Cousins' The Story of Film is an important and massive series that unquestionably deserves its own article: The Telegraph headlined it as "cinematic event of the year"[20], an Irish Times writer called it a "landmark" (albeit a "bizarrely underpromoted" one)[21], etc.[22][23] Whether a complete list of all the film clips in that documentary is an appropriate part of Wikipedia's coverage, I'm not so sure.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator, I should have created the article on the Story of Film at the same time. As the series will Yes this list merits to be preserved until someone writes the article on the Story of cinema, an odyssey. Excuse me if it does not belong in Wikipedia however. This Story of cinema is such a great great teaching about cinema and the list is very useful to those who wish to learn more by watching again or for the first time the movies mentioned in the Story of Film please please do not delete I hve no time to write more now. Maria Elvira Pousa become recognized over time, this list shall merit its keep. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Yes, it's an essay, but the argument is laid out quite well. As for keeping or deleting this list, I'm still undecided. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 February 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the parent doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if the article about the parent series existed, that would not necessarily justify having a separate article with the list of films featured therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Despite the fact that the parent article hsa been created, I still don't see a need for this to exist as a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated comment. Since no one else took up the challenge, I've started an article for The Story of Film: An Odyssey. Described by multiple reviewers as a landmark, it clearly deserves an article. I'm still not convinced that the long list at issue here, itemizing every film discussed in the 15 hours of the series, is an appropriate part of Wikipedia's coverage. On the other hand, maybe the shorter list of episode titles should be included. So maybe we should merge some limited parts of List of films featured in A Story of Film: An Odyssey into the new article The Story of Film: An Odyssey?--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
merge the entire list into the new article. As it's a finite list, it could be handled better there, in two columns. If the program is a landmark, the list of films it covers is a good checklist of importance for the films--it's like the list of films preserved by the LoC. I note some of the films included do not yet have Wikipedia articles. This list gives sufficient warrant for making those articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted in light of creation of the parent article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 16:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Story of Film: An Odyssey per DGG. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There appears to be some disagreement on whether or not the sources cited here are reliable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DotProject[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any evidence that this "project manager" is passes the WP:GNG. Possible merge into Microsoft project, but current sources are an interview, and two sites requiring logins who, by the URL's appear to be forums anyway. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per the article's first AfD, which I had not seen when I first created this one. It would have been really nice if someone had actually added those sources to the article though... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that....hang on a second... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the first three sources listed at the previous AfD are here, here and here. Note that per WP:RS, a questionable source is one "with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature..." Now, this is debatable, but all three of these books seem to be promotional in tone. The first, whose section is titled "Mr Big uses dotProject for project management", is from a book titled Free Software for Busy People and contains text like "Mr Big is a fan of Microsoft Project, regularly using the older PC version and insisting that his immediate employees also use it, but this pricing was too high. So dotProject seemed like the perfect solution." The second, from the book The Business Guide to Free Information Technology , has an installation step-by-step. The third book, Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible, lists dotProject in a directory among many others. The fourth source, Research and Practice of Active Learning in Engineering Education, has exactly one sentence on the software. I'll leave it for others to decide, since I'm neutral on whether or not these sources establish notability. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it's a Delete - these are unreliable sources. The article has had several years to gather independent reviews for the software - there must be some but certainly hard to find. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one to filibuster, but this should have been gotten the first time around. I do believe that consensus is clearer now than it was three years ago that being open source does not lower the notability standard for software. The offered sources in the last AfD do not appear to be significant coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Free Software for Busy People (1) praises the software and is not written in a professional or encyclopedic tone, it seems informative and instructional, not promotional, much like a positive, independent review. Unless there's some problem with the publishers that I'm not seeing, these are not questionable sources. Source 2 contains a lot of how-to content but also some paragraphs which describe features of the software, significant coverage, and usable for providing encyclopedic content. Despite their brevity, the two paragraphs in 3 are indeed significant coverage and again usable for providing encyclopedic content. When evaluating significance of coverage, it only matters what the book says about the given topic and how it says it – it's irrelevant that the book also discusses many other software packages. Agreed that open source software has the same standard of inclusion as anything else, that the article is poor quality, that the references need to be incorporated, but none of those are reasons for deletion. – Pnm (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as if that weren't enough, from the article: "There is also a book written on the subject of using dotProject for project management entitled: "Project Management with dotProject" by Lee Jordan." It's 232 pages long. – Pnm (talk) 19:57, 27 January 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:08, 4 February 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, Der yck C. 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the references seem to be indeed quite appropriate for WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT purposes. That said, the article itself is of exceptionally bad quality and thus needs to be rewritten entirely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus per the disagreement on whether or not the Boston Globe article contributes to the establishment of notability. Also, there was no discussion of the other sources mentioned. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper (company)[edit]

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

No reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. I've already removed a section that was pure advertisement. This company fails guidelines set at WP:ORG OSU1980 13:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Boston Globe coverage and the Wall Street Journal blog entry, together with the television segment, seem sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a phone answering service business, one of many such businesses. They got a story in the Wall Street Journal about a promotional stunt involving chocolate covered grasshoppers. They got their startup covered in the Boston Globe, which is their local paper. I don't see either of these things as being the significant effects on history, culture, or technology that would turn this business into an encyclopedia subject. This article also appears to be only about the phone service, and the promoters apparently operate several separate businesses under the Grasshopper brand. We certainly don't need separate articles about each of them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage by the Boston Globe and elsewhere show notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 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, Der yck C. 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The coverage in The Boston Globe concerns the company founders's idea to set up an entrepreneur's day/week. The article is not about the company itself, and it does not help to establish notability of the company. Nageh (talk) 19:34, 16 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Leat[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the news, and this individual is only notable through one event. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be in Wikipedia because highlighting the failure to deal with Leat may help prevent similar trouble in future. This would probably be better as part of a longer article but I'm not sure which article fits.

Can anyone suggest an article where this can go? I'm not lengthening it because I agree it's better as a section of a longer article and I want to keep it the right length for such a section. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major peadophile story. lousy article that can be fixed though.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 29 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. Reprehensible though his conduct was, I don't think it qualifies as a 'well-documented historic event', nor is he a 'renowned national or international figure'. We generally shouldn't have articles on criminals notable for a single crime, except where they've become notable themselves (e.g. Ronnie Biggs). Robofish (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E and PERP are quite clear: "[T]he criminal ... in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: (for perpetrators) 1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; (2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual — or has otherwise been considered noteworthy — such that it is a well-documented historic event." (emphasis in the original)
Neither is, of course, the case. Far from being a "major" abuse case, as asserted above, it's one of a torrent of such cases over the last decade or so. Ravenswing 10:13, 14 February 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, Der yck C. 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the foregoing deletion reasons. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article because Nigel Leat was allowed to continue with his reprehensible actions for ten years without the authorities doing anything though many people were concerned. Is that notable? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Color me confused; you've been editing on Wikipedia for nearly four years and a couple thousand edits worth. Of course you know that the pertinent guidelines of notability have nothing to do with how long one might have been a pedophile, whether the authorities performed due diligence in the matter or whether the story of a particular person makes for an adequate cautionary tale. Ravenswing 10:32, 18 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Sanyal[edit]

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

being an elected local official does not guarantee notability per notability guidelines. Cloudz 679 16:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________

Gautam Sanyal is not an elected local or a national politician.
He is a member of the Indian Civil Service. The retirement age of a member of the civil service in India is 60 years old. Gautam Sanyal retired in 2011 as he turned 60 years old; however, he is the first civil servant or bureaucrat in India to head an Office of the Chief Minister of a state in India after retirement from his tenured service. (this is notability as first in recorded history).
Please read the following article then you will understand why he 'should have and has a' biography article in Wikipedia.
- (http://202.144.14.20/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&show=archive&id=388572&catid=35&year=2011&month=11&day=2&Itemid=66)
- (http://www.indianexpress.com/election-news/in-mayas-footsteps/880243).
- (http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/10504166.cms)
- (http://www.asianage.com/columnists/caught-loop-047) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.179.147 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________

Comment - A gnews search yields significant coverage in major Indian newspapers. Can be used to support and expand this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________

This is true. I asked my fried to start this article. However I am in process to expand the article. But everyone has to wait for some time because it will take time. The article is just now in its infancy. I am on process to develop it more. Please remove the tag for deletion from this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.179.147 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mamata Banerjee All the 'find sources' GNews hits relate to the subject of the article, but none of the GBooks or GScholar ones do. Of the GNews hits, while many are passing mentions, quite a few, relating to controversy either about his original appointment to his current position (which does not seem to be automatically notable) or to its extension when he reached retirement age, are more substantial - but seem less concerned with the subject himself than with either with the precedents broken by his appointment or its extension or with Banerjee's insistence on appointing and then keeping him. In brief, he seems to have some notability under ((WP:GNG|]] - enough to justify a mention on Wikipedia - but all inherited from Banerjee. As a complicating factor, many of the GBooks hits and almost all of the GScholar ones seem to relate to a biochemist with AstraZeneca whose research publications would probably meet WP:PROF should anyone ever create an article on him. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________

I think there is no need to merge an individual biography to an another persons biography. There is the need to have a single source, legible biography article of 'Gautam Sanyal'. There is a reason for notability and why I created this article which many have either ignored or just skipping off. This is the notability as I mentioned with sources "The post of the Secretary to the Chief Minister of West Bengal" in the Chief Minister Office in West Bengal since India's Independence in 1947 has been held by officers of IAS cadre (All India Civil Service, Group A). However, Gautam Sanyal [officer of CSS cadre (Central Civil Service, Group A)] is the first one in recorded history to break this legacy and become the Secretary to CM.
- The point is - civil servants of central service usually go for deputation to an another state for few months or a single year for experience but not permanent posting. He likely is the first CSS officer, the first non IAS officer and the first retired civil servant who hold the post of Secretary. The post is considered to be the most powerful in the state of West Bengal. However, also civil servants in the state and even India has considered Sanyal to have more power and control than the Chief Secretary of the State. New poster boy of India’s babudom/civil service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.186.242 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question; in the bad old days, senior civil servants were awarded state honours; Order of the Indian Empire/Order of the Star of India. Did India continue with this sort of thing? If so, what awards has he received? Is he covered in a Who's Who - style reference work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney the barney barney (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument for keep strikes me after straining for notability through a particular rare but not really notable career structure. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete DGG is wrong. The article "Gautam Sanyal" is a biography article. The article should exist and live by the virtue of the notability that he is one of the senior civil servants in India who is the most important officer in a state which the State Chief Minister has fought for from many of the civil servants who are allotted in the state and worked for whole their life who did not get the position he serves now.
- The reason why there is not a "career structure" in the article is because this is all the information I have of the person (I should point out that it is not because he has limited or no notable career experience and structure). Hence, the article has limited information with credible references. However, I am working to get as much information of the article on the person. You should see in coming days more references and information in the article.
- You should note that the article has references. I should point out that there are many articles (but not many and not all) in wiki which does not even have a reference and an external link but solely exists on the virtue and principle that the person is important in the state or the head of the government or bureaucracy. I think people should move out of double standards and search for more information on web. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.191.174 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — 59.178.191.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I agree that the subject does not seem to qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, nor - of course - do civil servants get automatic passes through WP:BIO. However, the Times of India and The Statesman are impeccable sources, and their mention of the subject does, I believe, pass the "significant detail" threshold of the GNG. Whether his career has been dependent on Banerjee, or that he hasn't garnered GScholar hits (huh?) is quite irrelevant. Ravenswing 09:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Last relist

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity^Talk _Contribs 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ravenswing. It's hard to set those sources aside, though I do note that the coverage I'm seeing is not as in depth as it probably should be. It is a bit thin, but I think it's enough to Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ultraexactzz and Ravenswing.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the top civil servants, if not the top civil servant, in a state. Clearly notable in my eyes. I really don't think we'd be having this discussion for an official in a similar position in Britain, Australia, Canada or the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very likely, actually. Let's take California, for instance. While Gov. Brown hasn't appointed a chief of staff, his predecessor's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 00:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's not what I said was it? What I said was, if an article existed it would be unlikely to be deleted. We all know we don't have articles on absolutely everybody of note. Wikipedia is an ongoing project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that's not what you said; you said that you didn't think there'd even be a discussion. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but that there isn't an article for Kennedy means that no one considered her enough of note to have created one. Given that, it would be entirely imaginable for people to consider such an article to fall short of notability, in the same fashion that it's quite possible that AfDs of non-Anglo-American subjects stem from breaches of guidelines or policies, rather than from less savory motives. Ravenswing 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I actually say before you misinterpret me. I was obviously talking about AfD discussions (this being an AfD discussion and all that), not about creation of articles. Are you really saying that every person in history worthy of having an article has already had one created about them? Really? I don't think so. We may as well just end the project now then. It's obviously completed and we're all wasting our time! Come on... -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: (scratches his head) And I am obviously talking about AfD discussions. If you'd like to argue for the sake of arguing, no doubt there are venues you can do that - ones, certainly, where you can continue the straw man arguments - but this theoretical flight of fancy has already run too far afield. Ravenswing 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scratching my head here trying to understand your replies. Nothing that you have written here supports your "very likely, actually" statement above. Yes, it's very likely that nobody has yet got round to writing an article about Susan Kennedy, but it is certainly not very likely that anyone would nominate such an article for deletion, which was Necrothesp's point. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If neither of you believe that "Given that, it would be entirely imaginable for people to consider such an article to fall short of notability" could possibly have anything to do with the deletion process, I can't help you. Ravenswing 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, you've still failed to grasp the point that just because an article has not yet been created does not mean that if an article was created it would be likely to be nominated for deletion. The two are completely unrelated. There was no article on anyone until one was created - they didn't just all spring into existence fully-formed at the exact time Wikipedia was created. There are still many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of clearly notable people who do not yet have articles written about them. If those articles were created then nobody would seriously dream of nominating many of them for deletion. The argument that nobody has yet created an article about someone so they're obviously not particularly notable just doesn't hold water. That was my point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 21 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Rocha[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage per WP:GNG. Single source from personal webpage. The name get a lot of hits, many are not related to the person. PF (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability, no indication of rw notability, rw notability looks unlikely no references. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Keep (changed) Shown that suitable sources exist but they're not in the article. Lacking from the article. I put one of the better-looking ones in. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage and content I've added. A perfectly reasonable and harmless stub. -- Lear's Fool 10:24, 11 February 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, Ankit Maity^Talk _Contribs 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements by 'Lear's, passes GNG.Cavarrone (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow continued improvements. Notabiity is dependent upon available sources, and not that they be used in an article. That said, my own WP:AFTER found plenty of news sources speaking about this person and his work directly and in detail. [24] We have a topic meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 19 February 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. henrik•talk 07:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Unicode character assignments[edit]

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

This article is way too detailed and complicated to be helpful for the general reader (or even Unicode experts), and this makes it extremely hard to maintain. I and other editors have just finished updating Unicode-related pages for Unicode version 6.1 that was released this week, but no-one has updated the Unicode content of this page since Unicode version 5.0 (released July 2006, and now three versions out of date) as it is so much trouble to recalculate all the figures and character ranges. Furthermore, the organization of Unicode blocks into different tables is idiosyncratic and seems to reflect a single editor's idea of how best to categorise Unicode blocks rather than reflect any categorization of blocks in the Unicode Standard. The breakdown of table rows into "Unalloc'd", "Alloc'd", "Excl", "Incl", "Reservd", "Provd", "Compat", "Core" is again idiosyncratic and borders on original research. A far clearer and readable overview of Unicode character allocation is already provided in the Unicode block article, and so there is no need for Summary of Unicode character assignments. BabelStone (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article looks informative to me. The fact that it is imperfect is no reason to delete it. Improvements are needed, but that is the case with 99% (or actually 100%) of all articles on Wikipedia.--Mlewan (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My improvement to it would be to delete the unnecessary columns, and rearrange in the order given in the Unicode Standard, the end result of which would be rather similar to the Unicode block article. If there did not already exist a better replacement for this article I would agree that it is better to improve than delete, but there is already a better, more informative article which is based on reliable sources (did I forget to mention that Summary of Unicode character assignments is unsourced?). BabelStone (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced" is no reason for deletion. If something is wrong and unsourced it should obviously be deleted, but if we were to remove every fact in Wikipedia that did not have a carefully verified reliable source, then the whole project would shrink to absolute uselessness.

The article Unicode block is something I had to look at twice, before I even realised that one can expand the section to get any useful info at all, so there is a usability problem there. Nevertheless, it is true that the two articles heavily overlap, so I change my "vote" to Merge and improve Unicode block. --Mlewan (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-direct page title to the section on allocation in the Unicode block article, per BabelStone. -- Evertype·✆ 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep- Needs to be sourced out, but that's an editing issue. Useful albeit esoteric piece, in my opinion.~~ Carrite (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will stand down since others more familiar with this content indicate this is a fork. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the last thing we need is an out-of-date WP:CFORK of something that already exists (Unicode block). -- 202.124.73.139 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unicode block Per nom. —Ruud 10:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current version (Unicode 5.0) was also the first version in the article, so it has never been updated. The tables can only be maintained automated (but there is no bot for this), which cuts me out of improvements. This situation is making the "to be edited for improvements is no deletion argument" unconvincing: here it is. Some column definitions are OR (e.g. Excl/Incl). And: what does the information really add to the encyclopedia? Apart from some legend entries, the page does not give much or easy insight nor oversight of the allocation issues. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator [25]. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I defer to the experienced editors' assessment that this is redundant and outdated. Do not redirect; not a likely search term. Sandstein 08:11, 11 February 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, Ankit Maity^Talk _Contribs 12:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The arguments of the experienced Delete proponents is persuasive. There are in fact no remaining Keep proponents, and I wonder why this was ever relisted. Ravenswing 09:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: When it was relisted, Carrite had not struck their Keep yet. Also, the creator was notified a bit late. For me, another week is no problem, though I recall that a earlier closing is possible. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no case being made here that there is something offensive in the work in this edit history such that these edits need to be hidden from everyone but the admins, I suggest finding a solution that does not use admin tools. Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move without keeping a redirect to Summary of Unicode 5.0 character assignments. Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just contradicted myself, because that solution deletes the existing title. Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 16 February 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) B music ian 01:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane O'Neill (tattoo artist)[edit]

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

Not notable and unreferenced - all refs point back to the same two non-notable sources both of which trade directories - except one which establishes a fact in the 18th century unrelated to the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment O'Neil is actually a participant in the reality show Ink Master which is on the Spike Channel[26]. Here's an article about him from Philly.com[27] SarahStierch (talk) 22:08, 22 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:34, 27 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing all over the place. Here's A STORY IN PRICK MAGAZINE, for example... Carrite (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And CONFIRMATION OF THE SPIKE TV SHOW connection... Carrite (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A figure of sufficient stature in the industry to headline the BEST OF THE MIDWEST TATTOO CONVENTION. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is another Spike TV-related resource, but here's TEN QUESTIONS WITH SHANE O'NEILL. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How have I gone through life without reading Prick Magazine? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I am relisting the last time. If no more consensus will close as no consensus

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity^Talk _Contribs 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per significant coverage in reliable sources:

Hiltbrand, David (January 17, 2012). "Philadelphia-area tattoo artist competing on 'Ink Masters'". Philly.com. Retrieved February 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Dekkers, John (February 2005). "Shane O'Neill". Prick Magazine. Retrieved February 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"10 Questions With Shane O'Neill". Spike Television. January 11, 2012. Retrieved February 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

See also: the awards and honors the person has earned (in references section of article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits. I think the notability is a bit on the thin side, but there's sufficient sourcing to inch this over to Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:09, 15 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online dating websites[edit]

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

This appears to me to be a very clear example of what Wikipedia is not: a directory. It looks like a great deal of love and effort has been expended on the article, it looks both useful and interesting, but that does not mean it has a place here Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stand alone lists are allowed on Wikipedia. This article does not meet any of the criteria under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is not duplicated by another article (list of online dating websites redirects to the article). Gobonobo ^T ^C 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gobonobo. I don't think this would have been nominated if it were titled list of online dating websites, which what it essentially is; any annotated list is basically a "comparison" so I don't see that as useful to include in the title. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Yes, it would have been, It is not a simple list. It is the content that caused me to nominate it, not the title. The comparative elements make this a directory very clearly for me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you've misunderstood WP:NOTDIR. You're far from the first person to do that. See also Category:Comparisons for a sense of how accepted this kind of article is. And at best you'd have reason to edit it to change it to whatever is proper for a index of our articles about online dating websites to fix the NOTDIR "violations," not reason to delete it outright. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It meets guidelines for lists; I'm not seeing how it fits with WP:NOTDIR. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 17 February 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). -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 02:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Reinoso[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being able to kick a ball around and get paid for it does not make one notable just for that fact alone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL (by playing in a fully-professional league), and is well on its way to meeting WP:GNG. The article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played at a fully-professional level of football (in the Chilean Primera División), passing WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has played in a fully pro league and therefore passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:17, 21 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotware Systems Ltd[edit]

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

Seems to be written like an advertisement, notability is also questionable. PROD was removed by article creator based on argument that it was neutrally written. GrayFullbuster (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. Questionable copyright claims on all the images used, too - editor claims the all (even the logo) as his own work, yet many seem to be lifted from pages like this one. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another neutral technology provider, specializing in e-FX ECN solutions for brokers and banks (whatever that means) advertising on Wikipedia. Article is basically a menu of what they sell. References are to directory listings and trade newsletters announcing product launches. Nothing establishes significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can write "whatever that means" about a topic, it's an indication that there's something to be explained - and that's the role of an encyclopedia. I reserve judgement as yet on whether this subject is notable, and whether the current mess of an article can be turned into anything acceptable. However I for one would really welcome some wiki coverage of market trading platforms. They're a hugely important topic in today's world (they can make my pension double or vanish overnight), yet they're almost invisible to anyone outside the cabal. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that software (as opposed to its user) can double or reduce one's pension; even if it could, the material on how one can avoid this would be not encyclopedic. That said, even if this article could possibly be somehow helpful (which doesn't seem to be the case, specifically because it is about a company), there is still no good reason to keep it in violation of Wikipedia policy. In the end, we write using publicly accessible sources, and this is an ISV, so it is his work to attract you with an easily accessible information, not Wikipedia's. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk)

FWIW, I gather that 'ECN' in this context means electronic communication network; an intranet for financial brokers. That's a potentially fascinating but poorly made article that could easily stand expansion; I had no idea that brokers had established a trading intranet by the late 1960s. And that's the problem: we create perverse incentives to create promotional articles about my business (and WP:GNG breaks in the face of busy publicity departments) but we can't divert these editors towards writing actual informative articles about their product's general category and how it is supposed to work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason to believe that the company is anything more than a run-of-the-mill technology company. There are no sources to suggest any notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant advertising.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might as well add a shopping cart and a payment page to the article. Advert by non notable technology company. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 17:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no sources suggesting notability of this company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I recommend watching the actions of User:Omahacrab after the deletion of this article. They may try to re-make it, or use wikipedia for self-promotion. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading WP:AGF. This is a new article from a new editor. There is no reason to be unrolling the lynchin' rope quite so hastily. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith doesn't mean we can't use our heads. All I'm recommending is that someone review this user's future edits. They've used Wikipedia for promotion in the past, and may do so again. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Omahacrab's page is a copy of the Wikipedia article. Is this an appropriate user page? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is a good place to discuss this. You can start researching this issue from WP:UP#COPIES. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue isn't that it's copied, but that it is the same commercial advertising that's in the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the main issue is that user behaviour is discussed in WP:AN/I and user pages' deletion in WP:MFD; and nothing about Omahacrab is supposed to be discussed here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<Batman> It does suggest some conflict of interest. </Batman> And FWIW, I'd have no objection to userfying the article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's likely the case, I don't see any relevance between the COI issue and deletion discussion. The COI issue is addressed by tagging with ((COI)), which isn't the administrator action, and thus can be done out of AfD process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no asserted notability (I was the one who PROD'ed the article). --B music ian 05:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another purveyor of unnotable "solutions". . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user also created the article Spotware, which redirects to this article. Should that be deleted as well or do we need a separate deletion debate?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this discussion is closed as delete, this redirect will be subject to WP:CSD#G8. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Samsung Group. Selectively, only the first paragraph Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Electro-Mechanics[edit]

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

Possibly vandalized by an IP editor, since the “Global Network” network is not encyclopedic (per WP:NOT#INFO and Wikipedia:NOTDIR), and the products section is jargon, the history section and the leading section looks like spam. It was a redirect to Samsung. Actually only the first paragraph, IMO, is encyclopedic. Open to more opinions. Lakokat (Drop me a line) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge first paragraph with Samsung Group and delete. This is Samsung's manufacturing division that apparently makes capacitors, resistors, and similar deeliebobbers. We don't need a product list, an unreferenced company history, phone numbers for their plants, or promotional patent nonsense like this: Samsung Electro-Mechanics is a technology-driven company and, through our Inside Edge program, we are focusing on developing state-of-the-art technology and parts. We plan to expand into promising new businesses such as energy industry,biotechnology, electronic vehicles, and ubiquitous sensor networks. Higher profit bases are being established as we expand high-end products and enhance cost competitiveness. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge with Samsung Group (only the encyclopedic content from the first paragraph. I think that a redirect will suffice, as it will perform a useful function for readers. It may be the case the this particular division is notable in itself (I don't know), but it would require a fundamental rewrite. If someone wants to write a neutral article later on, they can. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:52, 14 February 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. For a very short article (which basically gives the location and says that Avounbaka is a populated place) there are some interesting issues here. First, precedent is clearly in favor of keeping settlements, past or present, even when the sourcing is thin and where a subject with a similar amount of sourcing might be deleted as non-notable. This includes small populated villages and hamlets, but it does not usually extend any named feature that may appear on a map, such as a farm or a camping site (both of which arguably could be called a "populated place"). In order to receive the favorable treatment that settlement articles usually receive, it is important that the place is verifiably a settlement, and not just a farm. To determine whether the evidence presented in the article is sufficient to verify a settlement, we need to examine the online maps. Some testing of the website for sites near my own location (Haugesund in Norway) showed that these maps do indeed display the location of several "populated places" that are no more than farms. Therefore, I find that the evidence of Avounbaka being a settlement is insufficient.

With this in mind, the arguments presented in the nomination, and Unscintillating convincing. Unscintiallating has also pointed out the location of Avounbaka has not been provided with precision. I have considered the merge proposal by Orlady, but I feel slapping "Avounbaka is a populated place on the northern coast" onto the Malo Island article would be unnatural, and highlight a possibly insignificant feature unduly (readers may ask "What is so special about Avounbaka that it warrants coverage in this article, while the other tiny locations don't?"). For that reason, I am calling this a delete unless and until evidence is presented that shows that Avounbaka actually is a settlement of the type that we generally keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avounbaka[edit]

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

"Populated place" in Vanuatu, at least if the article is not wrong. I have seen notability conditions are fairly lenient for "Populated places", visiting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places and Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (an essay) before acting. However, I don't think this article passes Notability tests since :

in its present state, it is sourced by only one document, the database of GEOnet Names Server. A cursory search did not show me any source independent from this one or Wikipedia ;

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places insists on keeping cities and villages as long as the article topic's existence is verified through a reliable source. First, a "populated place" with no hint of the population may be too small to be even a "village" as meant in this policy page. A more important question is the reliability of GEOnet Names Server, whose methodology is not known (at least by me). I have found while searching before opening this AfD the following PROD-ding of a clearly fictitious article based on this data bank : see King Arthur Court, Tennessee ;

Wikipedia:Notability (geography) recommends keeping any article about a place which has legal recognition, but there is no hint of such recognition for Avounbaka. For non-officially recognised populated places, this essay recommends : a named subdivision that takes up part of a county, but has no formal legal boundaries, will be notable if evidence can be shown of substantial non-trivial information about that subdivision. We have no hint of any "substantial non-trivial information" being available somewhere about this place ;

I had an opportunity last year to try to write a few sentences in articles about Vanuatuan places. This short experience brought me to consider that, with possible exceptions for special places, written sources simply don't exist about a generic village in this country. French Tourist (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is really hard to determine whether places like this exist when you are dealing with lesser developed nations like this. The official government census (seen here) does not mention any locale that goes by this name, but I don't know how detailed it is and if it is completely representative of geographic locations in the country. I think the fact that it is in the GNS, is enough to warrant a keep...it is definitely a reliable source, coming from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency a worldwide leader in cartographic information, just as we keep unincorporated communities in the United States I think this is worthy of a keep as well. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Malo Island - I don't know much of anything about Vanuatu (other than the fact that several apparent diploma mills seem to do business there), but as a general rule I don't think that Wikipedia should be creating and maintaining articles about places anywhere in the world when the only thing that can be reliably said about those places is "The name and coordinates appear in a U.S. government database, where it is identified as a populated place." In this case, the place isn't even visible on online satellite maps -- both Bing and Google show nothing but cloud cover at the supposed location of Avounbaka. Instead of creating articles on the basis of less than a shred of information, the purported existence of places like this one can be documented in articles like the one for Malo Island and the pages can be redirected. The article also could list Abounatari, Aravida, and the other Malo Island place names that appear on online maps and presumably are also listed in the same database where Avounbaka was found. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alternate names appear to be Abounavahé and Abounavahe. References:

The reason for deletion is that I cannot find any maps that do not put this village under water which means that all of the sources are actually derivatives of the one database. And as per WP:Editing policy, the absence of information is preferred to false information. I found two sources for the elevation, one put the village at 3 m, the other at 56m. IMO, a keep is preferred to a merge, the organization of the encyclopedia here is already well-factored. Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 19 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plastomer (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page, only the primary topic is a valid item, others do not have articles and are not mentioned elsewhere. No need to disambiguate at this time. France3470 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Nyttend's removal of ((db-disambig)) was mistaken. There are no existing pages other than Plastomer that are ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. G6 Template:Db-disambig explicitly covers this: "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages" (check) "and whose title ends in '(disambiguation)'" (check). 28bytes (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per G6. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:45, 14 February 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 Tredington,_Gloucestershire. henrik•talk 07:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tredington Community Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I previously redirected this to the local settlement per WP:OUTCOMES and it has been restored. I see nothing in the article that makes it a notable school so I am bringing it to AfD for deletion/redirection again. Bob Re-born (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tredington, a nice normal school but not notable in itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If something has significant coverage for being old and unique, then it might be notable. But just being a hundred years old doesn't mean a subject is automatically notable ( this is a variation of the "inherent notability" fallacy). Them From Space 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources have been identified which would satisfy the relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this primary school is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of any independent coverage at all in RSs in gnews and gbooks. It does exist, but that does not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect but preserve at least the bits about the age of the school and the catchment area. The previous AfD seems to have been done in 2005 before the consensus emerged that only secondary schools are presumed notable. I was surprised that a school that age hasn't been covered in more sources, but since there really isn't much to say other than this school existing, a merge is the best option. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems reasonable. Inasmuch as the entire text is uncited, merge does not (per wp:CHALLENGED). If there is new text to be created, it can just as easily be created at the merge target -- in which case the editor proposing merge will not be left with the job of moving the history of the page, etc., to the target.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect agree with above user not notable on on but should be merged into parent article.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I initially reverted the redirect because another editor had previously proposed a merge. The age of the school merited further investigation, and a redirect would have hidden away all the useful content. After investigation, it appears that the school is unusually tiny and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to write a standalone article. I've now merged the content into the Tredington article, and added sources. Dahliarose (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- This is almost invariably the best solution for Primary Schools. The consensus is that they are NN. If some one keeps reverting the redirect, it should go to RFD and be salted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I am personally ambivalent regarding the page, Per WP:MERGE#Proposing a merger, I'm of the opinion that this is the wrong venue to discuss a merger. I would suggest that you discuss the issue at the article's talk page and/or relevant projects (such as WP:WPSCH). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:20, 22 February 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 deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure) B music ian 09:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sindiket Sol-Jah[edit]

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

No indication that this literary organization is notable, language of article is Malay. Safiel (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7, no indication of notability, completely unreferenced. (The page creator had removed the speedy tag when I nominated it in the first place, so I have restored it.) --B music ian 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Brother with perfect timing[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional, no news hits, and rotten tomatoes has no reviews. I'd say that this fails to meet notability standards. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree wholeheartedly on the blatant promotion part, but I am finding some reviews, one of which is from the NYT. (Well, one review which means there might be a few more.) I'm going to try to see what I can do for this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep I had to go to the google books vault for most of the reviews on this one since the film (and most of the reviews) were written before internet reviews became a big thing, but I found enough by reliable sources to justify keeping it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep Appears to meet wp:notability. Writing needs improvement for neutrality; sounds promotional. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some search hits if you did deep enough, though it's pre-internet-era and foreign so not covered in all the main sources; also a few references in Google Scholar in articles/books on Black South African music. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets the general notability criteria ("has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") as well as film notability criteria for being the subject of "publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." Rotten Tomatoes was launched in 1999 so, as described in WP:RTMC, it is not a reliable tool to gauge anything having to do with films released before that. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequate sources seem to have been provided to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - I wasn't able to find anything, but there was stuff to be found, so I will withdraw this. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:03, 14 February 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 Ternary plot. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simplex plot[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, or if that's questioned, could be redirected/merged with Plot (graphics), which, ironically, doesn't even wikilink to this article. Also, article is unsourced and has had virtually no attention since its creation years ago. Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ternary plot. The Google Books hits provide sufficient evidence that it's another name for a ternary plot. In fact, this name is already mentioned in that article. Can't see anything in this article worth merging though really. (I guess strictly speaking the term 'simplex plot' would include similar plots in more than two dimensions, but i didn't come across any when browsing the Google Books hits.) Qwfp (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to simplex plot in the ternary plot article is somewhat ironic as it has a fact tag that's from May 2011. The only material in the simplex plot article possibly worth keeping is the sentence about the axes - assuming the book is a source for that and it's not simply WP:OR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Maynard Smith book uses the kind of plots described (viz. on p. 19), it does not use the term "simplex plot" to refer to them, but just calls the plot "a diagram". Google book and scholar search show that the term "simplex plot" is in widespread use with the same meaning as "ternary plot", and such use is clearly not specifically confined to the realm of game theory. --Lambiam 15:56, 14 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ternary plot, the already existing article for this topic. -- 202.124.74.80 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seán O'Mara[edit]

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

This article doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. I tried searching for reliable sources and came up empty handed. Most of the refs don't really cite this person in any signficant way, and as far as I can tell, he is a non-notable photographer, just like the rest of us. Also appears to be WP:AUTO as the primary editors of the article are 2 anons and Xonboy, which I suspect are the person in question. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 31 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:31, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Almost certainly not notable as a photographer; I can't find any references. But may almost be notable for other reasons, if you combine his work as designer, curator, writer, company boss, lecturer, etc, which seems reasonably illustrious, but there's just not the third-party evidence. Outside of replications of the Wikipedia page, a couple of articles by him, and a few lists/business directories, there's really nothing. I don't want to delete somebody who collects spacesuits, but most of the references on the article are irrelevant and it's hard to put a case for keeping him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Clear self-promotion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Damn, this is one of the best personally-generated bios I've ever seen. "Every person has a story," and all that. Of course, that won't count for anything unless good published sources are mustered. I'll give it five minutes of looking and if anyone from ARTICLE RESCUE SQUAD has a bit more time than that, this one might be worth the effort. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see reference that "He was profiled in Creative Review's 'Creative Futures 95'" on what looks to be an employer's website. I can't find that on the Net, but if anyone knows where to find that, it could well be a first source. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wikipedia mirrors, but it's not looking good for this piece. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found this but I don't think it's enough to change my vote yet. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how some people use Wikipedia as a resume. That would probably explain the depth of this article. I think that news article ironically proves more for the delete case than a keep - as a local newspaper mention hardly warrants notability. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gallant[edit]

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

Text is wholly unsourced (since the only source on the page now 404s); article thus fails WP:Notability (people). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn on this one. For someone who was featured in three notable games, had a type of shoes named after him, and was shown in a fairly popular skate movie, it is insanely difficult to find siginificant coverage in independent reliable sources. For now I have found http://espn.go.com/action/skateboarding/blog/_/post/4700392 (short article) http://espn.go.com/action/skateboarding/news/story?id=4682252 (interview), and the very short http://espn.go.com/action/skateboarding/blog?post=4443554 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you find sources, by all means add them to the article! I've updated the article with the interview and some other sources I have found. (I am not taking a position on whether or not the article should be deleted, or even whether the sources I found are sufficiently reliable.) —Tim Pierce (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:31, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage seems to exist; mostly skate-related media but also ESPN as mentioned above. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to meet wp:notability criteria. Ouaanaya1 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Ouaanaya1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMDX[edit]

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

Completely and utterly unsourced. Has nothing on it to hint at, much less prove, notability, and a Google search turns up nothing usable source-wise. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Model-driven architecture (maintaining WP:WEIGHT with redirect. It is mentioned here and there including article on IBM DeveloperWorks, so deleting entirely while having a good target makes no sense. I think the ideal solution would be to list known MDA tools in subsection of Model-driven architecture and link it there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:29, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:25, 14 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myhomepage[edit]

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

Non-notable website; 16,000 on Alexa Ranking of sites. No reliable sources to corroborate content. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any WP:IRS and the article seem to rely heavily on Facebook sources. Sionk (talk) 22:46, 5 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely promotional and SEO-oriented. Provided sources are not impressive; a reasonable search finds nothing better. What does make an impression is that major contributor User:Frintsw has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Like other editors, I'd be shocked, shocked to discover that page creator User:Henderh5 and other early editors User:Systemsdrew, User:TechieVerie and User:Colinchengmhp are related accounts. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marista Rugby Club[edit]

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

Sources are all self published. No coverage in third-party sources. Subject fails notability guidelines. I could find one mention of this club in a RS: here but I think it's a trivial mention... and this is the ONLY mention I could find anywhere. My Spanish is horrible though, so please prove me wrong... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a wrong nomination for those reasons: 1) "Sources are all self published": In the case of Marista, such as other minor rugby teams in Argentina, it is really difficult to find information beyond clubs' webpages because rugby union is not a popular sport in Argentina, and the media does not usually cover them. 2) If this page should be deleted, all the pages about minor rugby teams in Argentina should be so. :: In Torneo del Interior, Torneo del Litoral (or even Torneo de la URBA tournaments, most of the articles of those teams are stubs... according to User:Livitup's position, all short articles in WP should be deleted?. 3) about Marista article in particular, sources and media covering have been added. Fma12 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the person who nominated the article could only find (as he stated) one mention of Marista RC, here are more webpages which refer to the team: here is the first about the Torneo del Oeste championship recently won by Marista. This article covered the final game when the Mendocino team defeated Liceo RC proclaiming champion in 2011. There is another link mentioning Marista here; English company Webb Elliss (main team sponsor) commenting the final on its Argentine website. The last, from the Mendoza Province newspaper "Los Andes" covering the final here. Besides, there are many Facebook pages dedicated to Marista RC here here and here amongst others, all of them with a wide variety of photos... isn't enough proof ? Fma12 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The rugby time[28] source seems third party enough to me. Not completely convinced on the notability, but find it difficult to find sources in foreign languages. From what is in the article I feel a similar club from an English speaking Tier one nation would also be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 28 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:27, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:25, 14 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Past[edit]

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

Fails to establish exactly why this is notable, also lacks anything but the band's official website as a source. The article is little more than "This is an album, here are the songs listed" and rightly should be deleted. If it ever actually does gain notoriety it would take no effort to re-add it. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 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 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this time, subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. I found a brief article mentioning the upcoming release, but nothing I would consider significant coverage. Gongshow ^Talk 21:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 8 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From WP:NALBUMS:"In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it". No argument can be made that this is a special case.—Kww(talk) 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lula games[edit]

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

Lacks multiple substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As far as I can see, basically all the games of this series have received some coverage in specialized sites and all they have significant Google News entries (mainly reviews) in multiple language, as 3d News, Techline, Проекты CNews, Gamesurf, Total Video Games. A search in Googe Books reveals they're even covered in notable "mainstream" newspapers and magazines as Le Monde, Panorama and L'espresso... They meet GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I clicked on the above google books search, and can't see what you are seeing in your gbooks search -- you linked not to the articles you indicate you found, but to the publications. Could you link to the substantial coverage in those papers? Thanks. Also, as to the gnews entries you point to, can you identify which you feel are RSs? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the Panorama ref in the main article. Le Monde and L'espresso (1999 collections) do not have preview so I can't judge in which contest they mentioned the games. Quite all the above entries appear, at first glance, reliable (no self-published, no blogs, no wiki sites). CNews.ru is, according Russian WP, the web version of a monthly magazine dedicated to telecommunications, technology, software and computer games. Techline appears the same (a web-magazine about technology and Internet). 3DNews, according Russian WP, is a 15 years old online magazine about communication technologies. Total Video Games appears to be a News/Rewiews/Previews site about videogames. Gamesurf is part of Tiscali web portals. Google News archive include several more sites of questionable reliability, as T-Online or Jeux Video. Furthermore, there are several news entries about Lula in GameZone such as this, this or this. I've also found a review of a Lula game by Aleks Krotoski for The Guardian, here. I also added in the main article a ref to a review by PC Gamer.

I even found a mention of Lula in the German cultural magazine "Ästhetik & Kommunikation", 112-115. There's only a snippet preview, so it's not clear if there's only a trivial mention or something more substantial, but the text visible in the snippet ("Gegen die Konkurrenz von Busenstar Lula aus dem Spiel Wet-The Sexy Empire oder Nikki Pandämonium (Pandämonium 2) und anderen digitalen Sexbomben hat Lara Croft sich durchgesetzt, weil ihre Designer sie nicht allein mit Kurven...", trad. "The competition between Tittie Star Lula of the game "Wet Attack: The Empire Cums Back" and Pandemonium Nikki ("Pandemonium 2") and the other digital bombshells Lara Croft has become established, since their designers do not only with curves...") seems to confirm the notability of Lula games.

I even found a review of a Lula game in MyTech.it, a news entry in Computer and Video Games, a trivial mention in a Corriere della Sera article, a La Repubblica's review . - Cavarrone (talk) 22:14, 29 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:05, 3 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last game's notability looks fine, the first one was covered in magazines at the time IIRC. This article is effectively a list, having the other games here makes more sense than having them spun out into their own articles unless someone finds and uses significant coverage to expand them into their own articles. Blech, vanilla crap. Someone another 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than adequate coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, and weak for a reason: It serves a purpose as a list of games in the franchise, and will help keep pointless stubs from being created, but the idea is actually quite poor that we should keep lame VG articles on the sole basis of some random reviews in gamer magazines. These are publications that, guess what, get free games and gear to review (a COI) and will review pretty much anything to fill pages and get buyers and advertisers (usually the companies whose products they review, a double COI). It's really questionable as "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" (especially the first two of those three points). I know that a lot of VG-related AfDs treat the appearance of some reviews in mainstream gamer rags as "proof" of notability, but it's wrongheaded and results in more trivial, never-to-improve articles being kept on video games than on any other topic on Wikipedia. It really, really needs to be rethought. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at these reviews? Theoretically you could be true, but in this case if you check the reviews you will find that basically all them panned these games, in many cases heavily... Cavarrone (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live Here Now[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep while not a record label per se, they have signed some pretty big names, including Erasure and Depeche Mode. Sourcing seems sparse but not entirely nonexistant: short NME article Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:03, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability, zero references. Also there is weasel wording which I think that Starblind might have fallen prey to. It gives the appearance (but does not even claim) that any of those bands signed with them. It appears that they just used their recording services. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 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. and rename Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Startling by Each Step episodes[edit]

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

I've added the proposed delete template on List of Startling by Each Step episodes because of the following concerns: "Believed to be unnecessary due to each episode's summary lack relevants, listed under Singapore's airdates instead of its original from Mainland China, incomplete, spoilers, lacking activities, sloppiness, and does not cite any reference. Unless improvements are made, I am standing the proposal of deletion of the article. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge and redirect. Concerns about air-dates is not a reason to delete...easy enough to change to those of country of origin (or add if the Singapore broadcasts are somehow important too). Concerns about sloppiness is never a reason to do delete...fix it or tag it. WP:SPOILER is never a reason to do anything. Episode-lists are common for many series, and putting them in a separate article is a standard way to avoid cluttering up a long article about the series itself. Which leaves us with general notability (WP:UNDUE, fancruft, or excessive/unencyclopediac detail...WP is not TV Guide) and lack of citations. The series article (Startling by Each Step) seems to have excessive plot-summary and other details (cf. WP:PLOT, I've tagged that article accordingly)--it's a series based on a book, so I assume the substantial plot is the book's topic--so I'd support redirecting back to the parent and putting a brief summary of how the series follows the plot of the book (again, don't duplicate book details). DMacks (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shotgun nomination manages to hit one actual deletion reason amongst the several listed. As is, the nominator admits that it aired in two national television networks, which means that the lack of sourcing should be easily remedyable. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is practically like written by a five year old, even though I know it is written by a Chinese audieance of the show who lacked the profieciency of English grammar, writing, and spelling.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a place for excessively detailed plots of television series. The plot section of the main article needs to be trimmed down as well. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 16:35, 3 February 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not for cleanup.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my and Lonelydarksky's comments aren't that this article needs to be cleaned up (salvageable topic or viable article if rewritten), but merely also noting that the merge or more-appropriate-home target of the content also may need attention. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 14 February 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 February 16. Snotbot t • c » 23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say delete. Whoever writing the synopsis is giving away excessive details, and writes like five years old. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NeoBatfreak (talk · contribs) has renamed this Afd page after Fabnerwen (talk · contribs) tried to rename the article using DISPLAYTITLE. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N and WP:LIST, hopefully provides a vehicle for reducing the excessive detail in the parent article. However, I am left trying to figure out why the name in the list is one way and the parent article is another? Why is this not List of Scarlet Heart episodes? --Tgeairn (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of Scarlet Heart episodes leaving redirect behind. As pointed out above, this meets N and LIST, but still needs IRS. I suspect the synopsis writer is either a younger editor or a primary speaker of a language other than English (possibly both), but neither issues disqualifies the writer from contributing. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to the people who originally aired the episodes, I believe that airdate should be changed to its original from mainland China. Because, each region has different airdates. The orginator of the article obviously stick with where he or she comes from, but US airs the show two months before Singapore.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kermet Apio[edit]

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

I think winning "The Great American Comedy Festival", important as it may sound, a local comedy show, does not confer notability. All of the references provided on the page are self-published. Cloudz 679 11:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 23 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are quite a few hits in gNews, but having gone through quite a few of them, they seem to be mostly listings information, with a few fleshed out with press release and interview material. Not quite enough to pass WP:GNG, and certainly nothing to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not written in the best Wikipedia style, and needs independent sourcing, but I think the GNews results include sufficient coverage in multiple sources to meet WP:GNG; the coverage is from all over the country, and includes detailed articles such as [29], as well as others behind pay walls. As for the Great American Comedy Festival, it may not have a Wikipedia article yet and it's located in Norfolk, Nebraska, but it has quite a bit of coverage[30] including not just Nebraska papers but also The Hollywood Reporter[31] and The New York Times[32]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:44, 30 January 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:12, 14 February 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hoff[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball manager. Fails WP:BASE/N. Adam Penale (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet GNG based on the sources that are about him and not a different individual with the same name.[33] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 10 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Spanneraol (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is a clear keep. Alex (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument", and despite the lack of participation, the one argument for deletion is cogent, while no argument for keeping has been advanced in two weeks (not counting the time when it was not transcluded). JamesBWatson (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Templars (short story)[edit]

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

I can't see any evidence that this, is, in fact, a short story. It is certainly a chapter in Jack and Jill: A Village Story, but it doesn't seem to have any independent existence. St Anselm (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:15, 7 February 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 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:40, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:09, 14 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prosfiction[edit]

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

Contested prod. No indication it meets inclusion criteria; no references. Not a notable concept. google scholar gives one relevant hit (3 in total), but that's the originator's own paper. henrik•talk 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced neologism, apparently the author's own fringe theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources either. Not to mention that the theory itself doesn't actually make sense; perhaps it needs to be explained better...but I think it's saying something about looking forward to fictional futures to integrate them into our consciousness today...or something. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:VERIFY – I tried to find sources to add to this article, but failed to find any. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. — Hebrides (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, original research, reads like a personal essay. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not appear to meet WP:GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not notable, barely coherent. Hairhorn (talk) 20:51, 15 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Akon[edit]

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

Rapper who has not released any albums. Has released on mix tape. Claims it debuted #1 on a chart, but unable to verify the claim. No reliable sources to be found. Says he goes by "B-Real", but there is already a rapper who goes by that, so searching is futile under that moniker. Bgwhite (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As suchh , he has worked with Rihanna . but still dont has enough notability . Lets see what are other's views ! Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He never did work with Rihanna. He only covered her song. Akon is doing Drake's vocal's with Rihanna in the background. It was never sanctioned by her. His mix-tape is mostly covers by Drake. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 1 February 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence he ever worked with Rihanna and even if he did notability is not inherited. Complete lack of independent reliable sources. Chart is just another random website chart, not a good chart. No notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 10 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet our notability criteria, and as pointed out even if he did work with Rihanna that would not suffice in and of itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 17 February 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 After nearly four weeks, nobody has defended the article, and two people have given reasons for deletion. Despite the low level of participation, there is a consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Team[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe conspiracy theory. Couldn't find any coverage of the subject among reliable sources either in English [34] or in Greek [35]. Athenean (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Macedonian (talk) 06:41, 31 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: As the nomination was not trancluded to the daily log, I have relisted the discussion to establish clearer consensus. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:09, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:07, 14 February 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 Trill OG. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countin' Money[edit]

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

After a bit of research, I believe this fails the notability guidelines for music (songs, specifically). SarahStierch (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After researching, I believe this article should be kept because this song was released on a major label, on an album that charted highly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 February 2012‎
- Note that the above editor was the originator of the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trill OG per WP:NSONGS. Notability isn't inherited. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:53, 6 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trill OG - these three blurbs offer some coverage, but I'm not completely convinced there's enough here to warrant an individual article. Per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album..." so a redirect seems reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 05:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trill OG as above. No particular claim to fame; author is free to merge any salvageable materials into the parent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 14 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cause + Affect[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Cause + Affect website say they are closing down, so it is only a 3 year company anyway. Rwendland (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a concern here; the concern is notability (or lack thereof). In order to be deemed non-notable, Cause + Affect must lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right to point that out. I was being careless in what I wrote - I'd also done a search for notable comment about them and could also not find anything; I should have mentioned that but forgot. Rwendland (talk) 09:14, 30 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:55, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam and failure of WP:WEB. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- seems a simple case of advertising by an SPA. I keep wanting to correct the company's name, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: googling finds no sources suggesting notability, and as it is closing down after a 3 year life, future notability unlikely. Rwendland (talk) 10:41, 14 February 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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesko Friedrich[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability re this bio. Even if fully supported by RS refs, the statements in his article appear to fall short of notability as well. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability one year ago. Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This really needs someone with a better knowledge of German television (and the German language) than I have but so far as I can tell, he seems to be one of the better-known German television satirists, with coverage to match. The Adolf Grimme Award which he and Dennis Kaupp won in 2009 (and which is already cited in the article) looks to me as if it may in itself be enough for ANYBIO. PWilkinson (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that assistance of someone fluent in German would be helpful. But I don't think that the indicated award satisfies ANYBIO, though I note that you think it "may" in itself be enough. And, I should point out, ANYBIO refers to a person winning an award, but not to a segment they appeared in winning an award.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 13 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – The Google news link above lists several potential German-language sources. Also, Friedrich is a published author, which may confer to notabilty: (in German) Jesko Friedrich (2004). Phraseological Dictionary of the Middle High German. ISBN 3-484-31264-5. Rather than outright deletion, this topic appears to need the attention of editors fluent in German to help ascertain this topic's notability. Adding rescue tag to article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board asking for assistance with this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that notice, seeking German-speaker input. I note that your rationale is based on the fact that he is a published author "may" confer notability, and that there are several "potential" German-language sources. I think, while accurate, those points are speculative, and don't rise to the level to meet our wp:v and wp:n criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If that's a notable award, then the guy is notable. If any of the shows he created or played a significant part in, are notable, than so is he. [36] Does the German Wikipedia have articles for any of these things? Dream Focus 01:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I note that your rationale is speculative. It is based on "If" the award is notable, and "if" any of the shows are created are notable, and "if" he played a significant part. I think that while that is all accurate, it is wholly speculative. We don't have a showing, per wp:v and wp:n, that any of those are the case, and therefore have at this point no verifiable indicia of notability. At the same time, I agree that German-speaker input would be helpful. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 13 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment Relisting per request on my talk page. The nominator would like some time for a German speaking editor to review the Google news sources. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone objects, I'll ping one German-speaking editor who I've turned to in the distant past when looking at German-language issues that were beyond my capabilities, and ask him if he has any thoughts on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done so.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found several Hamburger Abendblatt references, he was also nominated for the "Deutscher Comedypreis" and (not reliable, but hopefully I find these online) an IP added at the German WP several newspaper articles (FAZ = Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, Stuttgarter Zeitung, taz) which are likely existent. mabdul 01:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FAZ, and Frankfurter Rundschau articles about grimme (sadly not the ones the IP mentioned)
- and finally now the FR article the IP mentioned!
- TAZ one;
- Oh by the way: FR, FAZ and TAZ are one of the biggest newspapers of Germany. mabdul 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh for clarification: Jesko Friedrich and Dennis Kaupp won the award together for their created character "Johannes Schlüter" (played by Friedrich) (Kaupp played/plays the moderator) in the show Extra 3 (aired on the NDR/3 sat; both national wide gov tv). The nomination for the Comedypreis was for the show "Dennis & Jesko". Both shows/characters are self-written by Friedrich and Kaupp. mabdul 03:22, 14 February 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 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 04:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe the dissertation demonstrates notability, but multiple reliable sources have covered his program and him, especially around the time he got the Grimme Award (he and Kaupp were jointly awarded for the segment, just to clarify). I can't say that the coverage on his life looks substantive, but the Grimme award is certainly notable and together with the coverage his work has received I believe this article can be kept. Hekerui (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character he plays, Johannes Schlüter, is widely discussed in German media, as the already mentioned stories and others show. Maybe if you think Johannes Schlüter (the award-winning character) is more notable than Friedrich (the actor) you could move the article, but to me it seems more sensible to have it under the actor's name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Based on the findings and comments of Hekerui.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 14 February 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:HEY. The discussion was far from unanimous, but just because it's not the new thing on the block, it is still notable. Userfication is not necessary because it's still a 'start'-level article and the work can be done more effectively outside of user space. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnthillPro[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor. I make no recommendation on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination, as per IP 12.167.152.34 in this edit, reads thus: "This is a brochure for a non-notable software platform; primary source is company page, no significant discussion on Google, etc." UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Please note this article is in the process of being updated to present a factual account of this product. References, citations, and awards sections are being added. ElodieAndco (talk) 01:20, 2 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AnthillPro is old and way obsolete, but it's one of several continuous integration servers (see also CruiseControl, Hudson/Jenkins) that has achieved sufficient external notability to pass AfD. Any over-promotion is cleanup, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anthillpro is not obsolete. Anthillpro it is not free or share ware. There are plenty of citations to be added here. This article is being updated. 10 February 2012 ElodieAndco ```` —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 10 February 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, Wifione ^Message 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't very clear what this software does from the page, but I gather it has something to do with the supervision of computer programmers. Trade awards from IT-related sources would not make such a niche product notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ElodieAndco left this comment on my talk page, and apparently knows of multiple detailed web articles and a couple more books that could be used as references for the article. (The references don't look like they've been added to the page as of yet.) So maybe we could userfy it? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not judge the notability of this product by the poor adherence to the Wikipedia standards of the (old) article, or by the speed with which I, a novice editor with a day job, am proceeding with its re-write and citations.

Admittedly, I have not moved quickly in updating the paragraph text of this article. I am new to the “wikipedia-way” and I have been busy doing research myself, into Continuous integration, Continuous delivery, ALM, and AnthillPro. --All of these Wikipedia articles sport large banners indicating that they need work, yet they represent a development that is gaining momentum rapidly in this troubled world economy.

I decided to take on the AnthillPro article first because it was clearly in the most trouble. To that end, I have added 13 citations, 4 of which are awards and 2 of which are press releases. I have added to the history and today updated the leadin. I have now the information that I need to re-write the body of the article and there are several other citations that I have yet to include. Meanwhile, my research has shown me many Wikipedia articles that have few if any citations, yet have no warning banners on them.

Many thanks to Chris the Paleontologist. For his help in answering questions, and his positive attitude. Right now I am wondering, what does Userfy mean? I will look it up tomorrow. ElodieAndco (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy means "moving the article from "article space" (the searchable body of encyclopedia articles) to a subpage of a user's user space (e.g. User:ElodieAndco/AnthillPro) so that it can be edited until it's ready for prime time. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^This. It's not a substitute for being an article, and it cannot remain there indefinitely. What it would do, though, is give you time to adequately source the article and document the notability of the subject without the threat of impending deletion. One you're done, you can ask the userfying admin to review it, or have other editors doublecheck. If there's consensus that you've shown notability, by all means move it back to AnthillPro - and make sure the closing admin knows that you did so. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy: I see no proper coverage to support the claims of notability. Sources are blogs, a book about the genre of software (used in a manner that I'm not sure whether the book's author is aware of this software at all) and a news site frequently seen here (at AfD) as a last resort for non-notable stuff. Given that this situation is observed after 20 days of AfD, I see no hope for better sourcing in the near future. Hope the contributors would take time to improve the genre articles before asking to move this back. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This this software automation tool is notable for a number of reasons. If I haven't expressed them yet, it is because I have been working on "proving" them.

It was the first or second such tool of its kind depending on which source you believe(proved and agreed upon) but more importantly, over the past ten years, it has consistently extended it's features and automation capabilities and its ability to integrate with virtually all the other point tools and third party tools in the software build, test, deploy, and release world (I thought I had this part proved).

UrbanCode is a very small company, and they have only has 400 customers, but look at who the customers are 25 are fortune 100 and the rest are extremely large.(I had to use press releases from UrbanCode for proof on this, but I could probably quote a couple of the awards that they have won for the same information. Meanwhile, the big companies quote their own press releases and publications on wikipedia.) The software is deployed all over the world. In 2012, AnthillPro is used by extremely large companies/enterprises to do continuous integration on thousands of builds each day and they deploy software to tens of thousand of servers every day.(this is the part that has been hard to get a printed citation on because these companies don't want to talk about it, and there aren't very many case studies being commissioned.)

I am adding book citations and new article sections now. It has been a long process to go through so many books. I really had not imagined that I would need to create another 20 or so book citations, to make the "noteability" point. AnthillPro is acknowledged in the software development particularly Agile development as a shining example of CI and what CI can grow up to become.

There are plenty of citations out there for me to gather, but there are already plenty of citations in this article. It seems to me that this process is not objective. Do I need to add quotes by the book citations? I think I just need enough time to work my way though the rewrite

As for the citations that I have provided. The web based citations on this article are in keeping with citations on software articles in general. I selected this mix (mol), 4 books, 5 web articles, 2 white papers and 1 press release from UrbanCode (web), 4 product reviews(web) and 4 awards, -- based on simular articles which appear to be well written, and cited, and have no warning banners, or threats of deletion at their top. Perhaps, this is only because the razors have not seen them yet? There are several more books waiting for me to create the citations.

And by the way Czarkoff, which "news site frequently seen here (at AfD) as a last resort for non-notable stuff." are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElodieAndco (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly got SDTimes for a less obscure news site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added during the course of the AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy. SD Times sourcing looks good, some offline coverage in books as well (checking some on Google Books shows that these aren't incidental mentions, either). Also, in this edit to my talk page, ElodieAndco said that eight additional in-depth articles are available from Gartner, which should be a reliable source. Although ElodieAndco admittedly isn't the fastest to update articles, deletion would be premature, I think. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Nearly all the citations are just descriptions of the product or new features added; from press releases and so forth. No actual demonstration of notability, just verification. The Gartner Award might have been significant, but I checked the page and there's dozens of "Cool Vendor" winners, possibly hundreds (most of whom don't have articles here either). And strictly speaking, the company won the award, not Anthill. --DeLarge (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox on Demand[edit]

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

Per WP:RS and WP:ORG. No third-party evidence of independent notability. Notability cannot be inherited. Note that Fox VOD, the twin of this article was recently deleted due to a CSD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very quick GNews turns up sufficient coverage such as:
- "Free Fox on demand", Forbes, August 22, 2006.
- "Introducing Fox on Demand", Broadcasting & Cable, October 3, 2006.
- "Fox to offer shows on MySpace and TV sites", New Zealand Herald, October 4, 2006.
- "Fox affiliate Web sites ready for primetime", Hollywood Reporter/Reuters, March 1, 2007.
- "Fox Expands On Demand Deals: Agreements with Verizon and Mediacom will give their subscribers next day VOD and online access to Fox's primetime programming", Broadcasting & Cable, October 25, 2011.

--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response These references show that this Fox service exists, but not that it has independent notability. What little information this article holds could easily be merged into the FOX article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many sources that can be used as shown above, and an aritcle is good for the subject and other services simlar to this like BBC iPlayer and Global Video have pages.--TBrandley (talk) 03:53, 9 February 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, Wifione ^Message 04:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is exactly unique about this network on demand service? Does it do anything unique at all? Not really. ABC, CW, NBC and CBS do not have articles about this concept, which is show video+ads, which is how every video on demand service works, cable or Internet, and is not meant to be an industry standard at all like Hulu or iPlayer. The restrictions Fox puts on their VOD platforms may be slightly notable but as it is, we don't need to elaborate on this outside of the main Fox Broadcasting Company article where a simple "Fox also offers their programming through video on demand on both paid television and internet platforms" will suffice. Sources above merely mention it exists, and the four top sources talk about a since discontinued form of the service where the affiliates did most of the promotional legwork and hosting for the network. Nate • (chatter) 00:42, 19 February 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 but with a redirect to Talhah, based on the best arguments by PWilkinson. We have in the past redirected children of notable persons to their parent's article, and this is a prudent direction for this situation. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Ishaq bint Talhah[edit]

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

Completing unfinished nom. Reasoning given in edit summary was "This article sites ZERO sources and references. It should be submitted for a speedy deletion." but I see no notability assertation either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. "According to a Sunni source" doesn't exactly count as a reference. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, disambiguate or redirect--the subject of the article is a real figure in early Islamic history (confirmation here and here), and was the daughter of Talhah and the wife of Hasan ibn Ali, both of whom are clearly notable. I could easily see Umm Ishaq bint Talhah being a valid search term, so we should maintain some sort of page there, prominently linking to those pages. I've added references for a few statements, but I'm far from an expert in the field. This article could use some help from someone with more knowledge but IMHO deletion is the worst option, although I'm flexible as to what exactly should exist at this name. The article has been getting a few hundred views per month, so it's not totally obscure either. Meelar (talk) 19:15, 7 February 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, Wifione ^Message 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited, and since there are two possible places to redirect, there would be no place to redirect. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this seems like destroying the village in order to save it. If there were only one potential target, this would easily pass the bar for a redirect (similar to our treatment of Karen Santorum). To say that adding another potential target--making this article an even more likely search term--should reduce it from redirect to deletion just defies common sense. Meelar (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete. Easy peasy. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. If she was only the wife of Hasan ibn Ali, then a redirect would be in order. But she's that, and the daughter of Talhah, and that calls for...deletion? If anything, this would make her a more likely search term, which would strengthen the case for keeping something at this location. Meelar (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, notability is not inherited. There is nothing to say about this person except that she was related to other people. Since there is no certain person to redirect to, deletion is the easy option. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Talhah As already remarked, this is a plausible search term - and just because there is more than one redirect target (in fact, potentially about four) doesn't mean searches should be impossible. As most of the information in this article is already in Talhah, that would seem to be the best target. PWilkinson (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of a clear redirect does not trump lack of notability. Search for the name and it will return all the relevant pages, including a family tree. History is sadly full of women whose only claim to fame is being born of notable parents, getting married to notable mean, or bearing notable children. She seems to be one of them. Derek Andrews (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect. Not seeing any evidence of independent notability. As an aside, all four wives of her husband have pages of their own. I think there might be a walled garden of sorts based around Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali and its associated pages. That might be the best page to redirect to...? --DeLarge (talk) 22:20, 23 February 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. Redirecting may be further discussed on article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Dennis Enviro350H[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:notability. Single reference to it given after a previous speedy and two prod nominations. Google searches on article title show nothing significant. noq (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to an appropriate target In any case, outright deletion is out of the question. I'm not sure it makes much sense to discuss the notability of a specific model of city bus but the company clearly is notable and that alone justifies keeping at least a redirect. Additionally we have coverage of that model and its launch in industry publications [37] [38] and coverage of a sale [39]. I'm not really sure how much more we can expect for a bus. Pichpich (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a specific marque-and-model of automotive vehicle, it is as close to inherently notable as things come. The aircraft project has a long-established (and codified, iirc) policy that any individual model of aircraft that can be verified through reliable sources as being a distinct model is notable, and there is no reason why the same logic should not be applied to models of motor vehicle, be they car, truck, Big Mack, or bus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 12 February 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, Wifione ^Message 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above, given that this is verifiable and sourced. Failing that, a redirect to the manufacturer might make sense - and I'm surprised that wasn't raised as an option before the debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:32, 14 February 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 - Nomination withdrawn after copious sources revealed. Delete !votes exist, but they were not aware of the existence of the sources. (non-admin closure). —SW— ^speak 14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Jones[edit]

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

Not finding any significant coverage in any reliable sources, finding no reviews of his albums, his awards do not appear to notable. I don't beive he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:MUSIC Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 17:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding anything either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet any of the criteria for notability in WP:MUSICBIO; was not able to find reliable sources either. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 08:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I took a shot at expanding the article, with coverage here and here and album reviews in Living Blues magazine [40][41] (only snippet views available, but if one manipulates the text enough there are several paragraphs per review), which appears to be reliable. Also, four of his albums charted [42][43][44][45]. Gongshow ^Talk 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After Gongshow's research and improvements to the article, I think this now passes WP:BIO. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although I could close this as a keep based on Gongshow's work and sourcing, I'm just being careful by seeking other editors' comments on the sources recently added. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice save, Gongshow. Meelar (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. appeared to be notable after work by Gongshow.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happily withdrawing nomination, the subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO. I'm glad that I sent this to AFD rather than prodding. Kudos to Gongshow. J04n(talk page) 00:13, 16 February 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. henrik•talk 07:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rishloo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Albums independently released. No charting or major awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The closest to a good source is the studiorock.ro interview but that fits into "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". None of the other sources provided are independent reliable sources, a bunch over user submitted or band written pieces. Nothing but listings found. Only change since last afd is that they are hoping to release a new album. This should be deleted for the ninth time. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This is the fourth AFD, and the first 3 have all closed as delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the wiki guidelines for musicians, they are quite unfavorable for Indie/independent bands who, through their own efforts, manage to release more than one album and tour at their own expenses. I believe that the way social networks or streaming pages are built today, they should also count as indicators among other criteria used there (number of fans, listens, etc).

Also, for number the number 10 criteria in the guidelines: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable....". Why not include bands who are featured on musical games such as Guitar Hero and Rockband? They must have their own sorting mechanism and it should be an achievement that someone's music has made it on their soundtrack. I don't mean to piss off anyone here, but I'll personally re-create the Rishloo article once they release the new album - if the article gets deleted. And whenever I find a new source. Lakeoftearz (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notability guidelines aren't so much meeant to be "against indie" as much as it is keeping every little nobody who creates a band, does it for 5 months/weeks/days/hours, and goes nowhere with it, off of Wikipedia. Without it, Wikipedia would be littered with no-name (and probably sometimes outright fake) bands all over the place. (That's nothing against Rishloo, I'm talking in generalities.) As far as making something like Guitar Hero a means of establishing notability, that could hypothetically be possible, but this article's AFD discussion would not be the place to change a policy for music in general. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt) - "Delete" per the last three AFD decisions, and that nothing has changed since then. "Salt" because it's the 4th time here at AFD, so clearly it's an issue. (Not to mention there's a user already threatening to make it again...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the purpose of guidelines and I wouldn't insist had it been, like you said, a band with 5 months of activity and going nowhere. I just believe that 4 released albums, last.fm stats and an activity of 10 years could make it a wiki article. I didn't mean to sound like a threat, but more like I'll make a new attempt at re-adding the article once the band'd discography has extended and hopefully more sources for it appeared. I don't plan to just write again the article and have the same issues with it again Lakeoftearz (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Last.fm stats and releasing albums that don't chart don't establish notability. Also, this "WP:SALT" that people keep mentioning, it would prevent you from recreating the article unless you get help from an Admin...so your comments about recreating it in the future, even if there's consensus to delete, comes across as pretty empty. (And the fact that you keep saying you'd do that, probably just make it all the more likely that it would get salted.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, on the next attempt (if I'm the one re writing the article) it would have to be by asking some Admin in order to avoid getting to the same stage as now. But as mentioned below, the band announced their split with the singer so at this moment in time I guess there's no reason to object current deletion, as the band's future is uncertain. Lakeoftearz (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band actually said at the same time as announcing the departure of the vocalist that it would also be the end of Rishloo. The remaining members will carry on working together (and are actually planning to head into the studio next month), but they'll be doing it under a new name. Their planned vinyl release of the "Feathergun" album will be the last Rishloo release. Presumably, they're probably taking the material from "Living as Ghosts with Buildings as Teeth" and turning it into their new project. MightyJordan (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just edited the page to try and bring it up to standards, but also to reflect the fact that the band have now broken up. In this new state, would it be enough to avoid being deleted? MightyJordan (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - is that like an artist's painting becomes more valuable after he's dead?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant is the page now in a good enough state to avoid deletion; the fact that they've split up doesn't add anything to the value of the page, I simply updated the page to add that in, as well as make it seem less like an advertisement, which is one of the main reasons the page is being offered up for deletion. MightyJordan (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue is whether the band is/was notable. The fact that an article reads badly may make it more difficult to determine, but, in and of itself, it's irrelevant. Here, the article has been determined non-notable many times, so most of what people are saying here is there's nothing new that supports notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed made involve adding facebook and youtube as sources (not [[WP:RS|reliable sources), stating that they have broken up and that they have a video (neither are part of wp:music) so no the changes do not show that they are notable. The nomination and the followup delete !votes did not mention advertisement, it's about notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am particularly persuaded by the NPOV and ATTACK rationales. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry VVAW controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy

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

A non-article about a non-controversy. Editing the John Kerry article during the 2004 election was an especially contentious process, exacerbated by the fact that we lacked many basic rules and protections like 3RR and BLP back then. Most of the problems were created by a single user, who was eventually banned by Arbcom for a year as a result and later banned permanently for sockpuppeting. This user was a strong advocate for inserting as much negative material as possible about Kerry, and several spinoff articles such as this one were created to appease him and keep this material from overwhelming the article. I had forgotten about this until I stumbled on this article today and I contend that this article does not meet the current standards of Wikipedia. It is about a non-controversy that doesn't exist except in the minds of a few fringe advocates. The few sources that exist are about a minor anti-war demonstration, while most of the rest of the article is unsourced and speculative. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the re-listing of this AfD, I have taken the liberty of re-listing this AfD in the referenced Wikiproject page. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ 23:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Keep or Merge - Specifically back into the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article from which it was ~~purged~~ ~~forked~~ moved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having reviewed the Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth archives, I was mistaken in my belief that this article was spun from the Swiftvet article and am changing my preference to Keep. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This article was spun off from the John Kerry article by JamesMLane, as he notes here. More recent BLP policies prevent such silliness from being merged back into the Kerry biography, but as explained below, the content already exists in other articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what these allegations have to do with the Swift Boaters, who made up allegations about Kerry's service in Vietnam primarily, not his post-war activities. Could you elaborate about why you think it belongs there? Gamaliel (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegations"? Perhaps a citation will better address your question...

To many political observers, these ads, “Dazed,” “Sell Out,” and “Medals” seemed to reflect the true reason behind the Swift Boat campaign: during Kerry’s appearance before the committee, he had testified to numerous atrocities and war crimes allegedly committed by the majority of U.S. troops serving in Vietnam. The Swift Boat Veterans were, in their own words, still furiously angry over what they dubbed his betrayal. Another spot, “Friends,” tied Senator Kerry to Jane Fonda, another anti-Vietnam activist.

Smith, Melissa M.; Williams, Glenda C.; Powell, Larry; Copeland, Gary A. (2010). Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game. Lexington Books. pp. 71, 72. ISBN 0739145665. Retrieved February 1, 2012.

"Non-controversy"? Does the NY Times generally produce 7 page explorations of "non-controversies"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a seven page exploration of his possible attendance at one single meeting, it's an exploration of his anti-war activism. It's pretty clear that his anti-war activism is important and that some people were angry enough about that to make up things about him decades later. But that's not what this article is about, it is about two "controversies", a small demonstration which is already amply covered at John_Kerry#Anti-war activism (1970–1971), and an imaginary controversy about some meeting which he may or may not have actually attended. The section about the latter is unsourced and the controversy is non-existent except on the fringe and only discussed in passing in articles like the one you posted about his activism. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and an imaginary controversy about some meeting which he may or may not have actually attended.

You may have missed this, among many others...

Campaign spokesman David Wade said Kerry had confused the Kansas City meeting with an earlier meeting in St. Louis.

Blumenfeld,Laura; Balz,Dan (2004-03-23). "FBI Tracked Kerry in Vietnam Vets Group". Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-02-03.

But that's not what this article is about...

What this article is "about" is what WP:V sourcing says it is "about". The notability of this controversy is clearly established per WP:V, WP:RS sourcing and is a major element in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth treatment. That it was shunted from the main article ostensibly for space and is now being recommended for deletion in its entirety is almost laughable...were it not so pathetically POV. In deference to TLDR, I'll refrain from further argumentation and yield the floor to other interested editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What this article is "about" is what WP:V sourcing says it is "about".

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What's really laughable and pathetic here is trying you fly the banner of WP:RS when this sham of an article is largely unsourced and then claiming other people are acting in a POV manner. You are the one dragging POV into what should be a civil discussion about deleting a half-assed article that fails about seven or eight of those WP acronyms you are throwing around. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...this sham of an article is largely unsourced

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...as are the other editors who will hopefully offer a similarly dispassionate opinion. In the interim, I'll look forward to collaborating with you as we work together to improve this article per the ((refimprove)) section tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say you wish to duplicate the information (yet again) in an article created by a single-edit IP editor from Joisey? I'm with Gamaliel in requesting that you elaborate as to why. I don't see that you've addressed his question above. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly urge any editor to read the preface to Gerald Nicosia's 2004 new edition of "Home to War" before weighing in on this article subject's notability. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point you are trying to make with this material? No one is contesting the notability of VVAW or Kerry's participation therein. What is at issue is here is the notability and verifiability of the two "controversies" in this specific article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read it; you've made a strong case that we should have an article about the VVAW. Now, would you care to make a case for a Wikipedia article about whether or not a politician attended a meeting, or just part of a meeting, or no part of the meeting, where a frustrated activist proposed a "late night beer-talk" over-the-top action that the politician doesn't remember, the veterans never took seriously, and that the FBI didn't deem important enough to report or act upon? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, would you care to make a case...

I've already commenced to do just that with the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing for already existing content and the provision of additional WP:V, WP:RS sourced content. While I'm also aware of additional sourcing addressing each of the issues you raise, I've not yet introduced them into the article...and do not intend to do so in this space other than to, perhaps, provide this single example...

The meeting reconvened at St. Augustine's Catholic Church, 7801 Paseo Blvd., in Kansas City, and it was again closed—meaning only national officers and regional and state coordinators. Several things about it are still unclear, especially the chronology, but there is no doubt that it was the most intensely angry leadership meeting that had yet taken place. And there is also no doubt, if the files and witnesses are to believed, that Kerry was present for all of it. Because wives and girlfriends, like ordinary delegates, were locked out, Julia Thorne Kerry, John's wife, sat outside on the grass—it was a warm, sunny November day—with a bunch of other women that included filmmaker Nancy Miller Saunders, the girlfriend of Arkansas-Louisiana coordinator Don Donner. Saunders says she remembers a lengthy conversation with Julia Thorne Kerry there, as do two other people interviewed: Rusty Lindley and Wayne Beverly, one of the Texas Marines sympathetic to Camil, who was barred from the meeting because he was not a coordinator. Veteran in Conflict, Gerald Nicosia, Los Angeles Times Magazine, May 23, 2004

JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is (with a few exceptions) properly sourced as to the charges and responses. These charges were raised against Kerry -- it's a non-controversy in terms of substance, but the right-wing noise machine has considerable ability to bring rubbish to prominence, and this is an example. Thus, the topic is properly encyclopedic. Nevertheless, giving all this information in the main bio article would be clutter, so keeping this daughter article is the correct application of WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Nicosia? Right-wing noise machine? Oh my. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his book played a huge role in bringing this to public attention. It was indeed the right-wing noise machine (talk radio, etc.) that seized on this silliness and tried to smear Kerry with it. JamesMLane t c 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his book played a huge role in bringing this to public attention.

Only tangentially. It was Nicosia's re-review, at the behest of Thomas Lipscomb, of the minutes of the KC meeting (previously obtained) and subsequent (perhaps first time) review of boxed FBI files (also previously obtained) that convinced Nicosia he (Nicosia) had made a factual error in his previously published book (Home to War...which also served as a source for the identical factual error in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty)15:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC) as to Kerry's attendance at the KC meeting. To Nicosia's credit (perhaps also somewhat motivated by Lipscomb's apparent doggedness on the issue), this personal revelation inspired both an advisory to the Kerry campaign and provision of those "minutes" to another inquiring reporter, Scott Canon of the Kansas City Star. THAT was Nicosia's "huge role". JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesMLane: I agree with you that "it's a non-controversy in terms of substance", which leaves me wondering how you can justify the existence of a separate article, detached from more suitable articles already conveying the same subject matter with context? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jake. It's notable in the sense that it was part of a larger scandal. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth per JakeInJoisey & Bearian.--JayJasper (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original comment three years ago still located at the bottom of the article talk page. This article should be deleted, as its content already exists in other articles (See VVAW for the medal tossing and Kerry's speech before Congress at Dewey Canyon III, as well as the Kansas City meeting; same speech and events described at John_Kerry#Anti-war activism (1970–1971), and same criticism also noted in Fulbright Hearings.) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was closed and has been reopened per comments by a participant who has new information to add. L Faraone 03:49, 14 February 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, L Faraone 03:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - There is more content here than can be comfortably merged. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was an organization, this is a sub-page of a political biography.~~ I don't doubt that there may have been some sketchy motives on the part of some in starting this page in the first place, but it is unquestionably an encyclopedic topic, one of the big pseudo-issues of the day of the 2004 campaign. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have little sympathy for articles created with the purpose of attacking a living person. The topic is adequately addressed in the main John Kerry article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've taken a little closer look at things tonight. While this is absolutely something that merits encyclopedic coverage, I am now persuaded by Gamaliel and Xenophrenic above that this matter is already dealt with in sufficient depth and with superior application of NPOV at John_Kerry#Anti-war activism (1970–1971). Carrite (talk) 08:17, 15 February 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. A possible move can be considered, but is an editorial decision. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baker and Howland Islands[edit]

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

Delete possibly speedy per A3 for lack of content or WP:Listcruft. This article is a two-item list with each island linked and no other info. These two islands are not a geographic grouping and have NEVER been administered as a group. They are both part of the larger political territory of the United States Minor Outlying Islands and they are also both part of the larger geographic grouping of the Phoenix Islands. (They actually are the intersection of those two categories, 1 and 2). There are a few web sources that refer to these islands together discussing possible nuclear testings or their discoveries, but these appear to be casual rather than formal linkings. Baker Island and Howland Island each cover their topics well. The article is only linked in Wikipedia once to a list of geographic pairs and a Google search only showed this article exclusively linking the two islands together. The Talk page is blank but the edit history shows a series of disputes over the purpose of the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice provided to the creator of the article at User talk:Ross Rhodes. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the two islands are themselves notable, I am not convinced that the coupling of the islands is notable; I can't find any reliable sources which deal with the two islands together as a single entity. Thus, an article of the two together is not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~see comment below to ~~Office_of_Insular_Affairs~~ Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The US DOI considers the two islands as a single refuge. There may be a better redirect target though. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Redirect That's interesting. Whereas the Insular Affairs section of Interior you linked to considered these two to be a refuge, another division of Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) considered these two islands plus Jarvis Island to be a National Wildlife Refuge.[46] Whatever the islands in that Refuge, I agree that the later monument would have subsumed it so no objection to the redirect. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Wikipedia shows that these two islands are in several places referenced as a group. They are further identified as being ~~the last to bring in the new year,~~ the entirety of US possessions in UTC-12. They are 24 hours behind the Wake Island Time Zone. The Howland-Baker EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) is a 400-mile diameter area protected by the US Coast Guard, and was in the news in 2005. Howland-Baker EEZ has 425,700 km2; and by comparison, Texas has 696,000 km2.

Searches on Google show eight different names being used, below are those names and examples of references using that name:

Baker and Howland Islands

http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/bhpage.htm

Howland and Baker Islands

http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/bhmain.htm

Howland & Baker Islands

http://oos.soest.hawaii.edu/pacioos/outreach/regions/howland.php is a quality treatment of the combination of islands

This source references a 25 Megabyte pdf, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1286/

Baker & Howland Islands

http://wlol.arlhs.com/index.php?mode=zones&zone=BAK.

There are also hits on "Baker and Howard Island",
"Howard and Baker Island", and
"Baker & Howard Island".
Howland-Baker EEZ

http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/5468

So there is a long list of sources available. From Wikipedia's viewpoint, this article is a part of the gazetteer. There are certainly some overlapping designations here, but deleting this one will not improve the encyclopedia. And redirecting it would be massive confusion given the multiplicity of names already shown above, the unique characteristics of the time zone, and the specificity of the EEZ. Without duplicating the detail at Howland Island and Baker Island, I'd suggest improving the article by adding references and with a See also section to these other more-established groupings including United States Minor Outlying Islands, Office_of_Insular_Affairs, Phoenix Islands, Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, and Wake Island Time Zone. Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Thanks for taking the time to research this and for pointing out the time zone; I added it to the article as the first official linkage. Not sure readers would look to a combined article to discuss contiguous Exclusive Economic Zones looking at other shared EEZs like Kingman/Palymra, Hawaii/Midway, or Bassas/Europa. If there are multiple things that link just these two islands, I would withdraw my nomination whereas with only the time zone I would considered that best handled in the time zone article.

Certainly there are a ton of potential sources just like a Google search for "Los Angeles and San Francisco" will have a ton of hits, but the results connecting the two all seem informal (even the government ones listing urban centers in California) or non-defining (e.g. a study of Chinese immigration to both cities, comparison of school districts, etc.) so we use those sources in separate articles rather than creating one for the two cities together. Other than the time zone, were you able to find any significant content that would best be listed in this article (rather than the individual islands or larger groups)? RevelationDirect (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we build consensus that the title of the article should be changed from Baker and Howland Islands to Baker and Howland islands, I think there is plenty of reason to keep this as a separate article, even if only to organize the multiplicity of names for the concept. Since you've mentioned cities, a related concept is Minneapolis-St. Paul and Twin cities.

But rather than parse these details, I think the EEZ overwhelms the case, the 200 n-mile radius for either of the two islands overlaps with 80% of the EEZ for the other island, thus I think no government agency is ever going to factor the Howland EEZ from the Baker EEZ. This is an enormous area whose economic potential is unknown. This one EEZ is 4% of the total U.S. coastline (475,000 km2 out of 11,300,000 km2), larger than that for the Republic of South Korea or Cuba.

The "Geologic setting" section from http://oos.soest.hawaii.edu/pacioos/outreach/regions/howland.php could be paraphrased to add relevant material to the article.

Here is another reference that groups the two islands:

http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=398:court-sets-hearing-for-marshalls-201&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=2

Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the source you provided (took a bit to download) and and the upshot on pp23-24 is that the only immediate mining potential is on and immediately offshore of the islands themselves (viz phosphates, sand, gravel, and coral) which would conflict with their protected status per the study. (Iron depsoits on a few seamounts are also mentioned as an intermediate possibility but no energy resources are identifed.) We'll have to agree to disagree on the value of this exclusive economic zone and whether it justifies a stand-alone article. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the fact that you've downloaded that 25 megabyte document and provided a balanced report. I think the point remains that this is a large area 2/3rds the size of Texas that will continue to be of substantial and enduring interest to people all over the world, including cartographers, geologists, tsunami warning systems, the fishing industry, sea captains, judges enforcing boundary disputes, and to conservationists. There is a satellite NSS-9 overhead. Allow me to mention Seward's Folly, regarding the purchase of Alaska in 1868, which our article has this quote:

“

The New York World said that it was a ‘sucked orange.’ It contained nothing of value but furbearing animals, and these had been hunted until they were nearly extinct. Except for the Aleutian Islands and a narrow strip of land extending along the southern coast the country would be not worth taking as a gift…

”

Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The [PacIOOS] mentions that Winslow Reef is "on the southeast boundary line of the EEZ". This led me to a UNESCO document in which Figure 1 has a map of the adjacent EEZ's.

"Phoenix Island protected area. Management plan, 2009-2014" (pdf). UNESCO. Retrieved 2012-02-20.

We have two reliable maps, one from PacIOOS and one from UNESCO. IMO a gazetteer entry needs one reliable map and one reliable fact. We have multiple news sources reporting both an incident and a court case a year later regarding a border crossing of the EEZ, and geologic analysis. I think we can mention that this is the last part of the US to bring in a New Year, as this can be derived with analysis that only requires a high school education (thus it is verifiable). NSS-9 is worth mentioning along with this EEZ being in the band near the equator that allows satellites to remain above in geosynchronous earth orbit. This EEZ should be mentioned in the Winslow Reef article. As of right now I agree with renaming the article to Baker and Howland islands. Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Winslow and the rest of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area is in Kiribati. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the excellent research above, there appears to be a real argument for Keep & Rename. The issue remains that the islands form a combined group of only 855 acres (1.336 sq mi; 3.46 km²) of uninhabited land (in contrast, Central Park covers 805 acres (1.258 sq mi; 3.26 km²) and has 38 million visitors). Not that size really matters, but having three articles (each island, plus this one) for such a tiny area may be excessive. While size of the landmass isn't an argument to Delete or Redirect, I wonder if there may be a benefit to somehow reduce these three articles to one or two. If we combine all three at Baker and Howland islands, much of the content at Baker Island and Howland Island can be combined and the additional information that covers both can be added. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am changing my response to Keep/Rename to Baker and Howland islands. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read both articles to see how easy a merge would be. Although they read very similarly (discovery, guano mining, colonization, WWII, natural protection) the specific content barely overlaps. (One exception is that they the guano was mined in both places by the same company.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Unscintillating, I'm glad you've shown far more interest in this nomination than the article itself has in it's tortured 4-year history. Rather than focus you entergies here, I much rather you spend your time improving the article maybe by focusing on the EEZ. (No objection to a speedy rename with a lower case "I" or of admin leaving open for that outcome.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:39, 20 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Herrera Guevara[edit]

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

Non-notable American football player for a non-notable football team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. cmadler (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no prejudice against re-creation should he obtain notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 21:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayamohini[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL The film does not even have a release date yet according to one of the sources [47] Darkness Shines (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Film satisifies Wikipedia:Notability (films). Its shooting is completed and currently in post-production stage and charted to release on 30-April-2012 (http://popcorn.oneindia.in/movie-cast/11224/mayamohini.html). References are given in the article and the Cast and crew have Wiki pages and are notable. A Google search or image search gives 142,000 results and 19,100 results respectively.
Anish Viswa 02:18, 14 February 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 closed as moot, article speedily deleted (WP:CSD#A7) by User:Malik Shabazz. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Causata[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. This software company fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Another privately held corporation specializing in software to help businesses understand their customers through mathematical modelling advertising on Wikipedia. I don't see this very brief article about a back office tech business making any claim of minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Smerdis of Tlön: same observation leading to the same conclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7, as no assertion of notability has been made. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:38, 14 February 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.