< 12 January	14 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fastily as "(G2: Test page)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Brokerage[edit]

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

Unreferenced and I question whether it conforms to the general notability guidelines. Ceradon ^talk_contribs 17:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article's talk page says:

I have completed my Masters in Information Management at Victoria University, NZ. I am proposing to proceed to doctorate research around these concepts.

My hypothesis is that information and technology consumers are now flooded with information and options, the roles of information classification and brokerage will become more important to the consumer.

At the project level this means that mainly project sponsors and owners, but also any stakeholders, now find that they are be negotiating with multiple project managers and members from many companies and organisations in many countries. A project broker will provide this negotiation and brokerage service.

I would like to use Wikipedia to develop this framework with people in the global community.
— User:Geeklee 22:52, 13 January 2012‎

It sounds as though he wants a wiki to work with other people to develop his framework—but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Th' Inbred[edit]

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

Sources are all primary plus one dead link, and the article is written suspiciously like WP:GARAGEBAND. Inter change able|talk to me 00:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the sources already there—Trouser Press, Artcore #7,[1] and the label Alternative Tentacles— indicate notability. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the primary sources are there. The band's record label, a dead link, and some rock band blog are not reliable, third-party sources. Inter change able|talk to me 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more clear? The sources cited are the RS Trouser Press, the longrunning zine Artcore, and the notable independent label. I am suggesting to you that these indicate notability. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa; the "dead link" was a browser error on my part. Anyway, I would doubt the reliability of sources that cater specifically to rock. While those pieces of coverage are definitely more than a passing mention, I doubt their reliability: an interview hovers on a primary source, and I doubt that TrouserPress article too which seems to paint them in too much of a good light. In any case, if more people agree with you I will withdraw the nomination. Inter change able|talk to me 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you would doubt the reliability of sources that cater specifically to rock? I'm not sure you've thought that through. I wonder what medical articles would look like minus specialist sources. At any rate, i have scared up some more generalist sources.

"Underground", Spin, July 1989.[2] "Th' Inbred: A Family Affair", Option #52, 1985.[3] Record Collector #370, December 2009.[4] "INBRED, TH’:Legacy of Fertility: CD" Razorcake.[5] "Record label reissues works by Morgantown's Th' Inbred", The Dominion Post, November 26, 2009.[6] (via allbusiness.com/lexisnexis) "Offensive Rock Band Names" in the hallowed Maledicta, Vol. 10, 1 Jan 1988.[7] 86.44.40.0 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources cited by 86.44.40.0. A GBooks search also indicates (albeit in snippets) there may be more useful material out there. With two albums on Alternative Tentacles and a selection of independent coverage, it looks like this is a worthwhile contribution to the encyclopedia's coverage of the history of punk rock. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:34, 17 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hafsa Nur[edit]

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

Contested PROD. WP:BLP1E and unsourced. Cloudz 679 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Google News archive finds nothing under "Hafsa Nur" or "Hafsa Marie Nur"; Google finds only social media and similar sites. Article provides no references. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 20 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Celebrity Cricket League[edit]

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

Another mickey mouse tournament of a bunch of celebrities having a jolly. Just because they're "celebrities" doesn't make their cricket or this tournament notable. A previous incarnation of a CCL article was deleted last year, having been deemed non-notable and failing WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable tournament. Johnlp (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not now or ever look like it can meet our inclusion criteria. Mtking^(edits) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that WP:CLUB is the most relevant guideline, but even so I would argue that this tournament meets both points: (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. (It is a national tournament and has received coverage throughout India.); and (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. (See my !vote for an example of those sources.) Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of. I believe this tournament meets the general notability guideline, but perhaps it should be moved to simply Celebrity Cricket League and incorporate last year's tournament as well. There is substantial coverage in major Indian newspapers, as can be seen by a simple google news search. I'll list a few here (but note that there are many more): (1) "Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", The Times of India; (2) "Celebrity Cricket League excites Salman", The Times of India; (3) "After IPL, it's CCL!", The Hindu; (4) "Cinema Meets Cricket", Indian Express; (5) "Celebrity Cricket League held in Bangalore", The Times of India; (6) "A feast for the eyes", Deccan Herald; (7) "Cricket’s coming home", Khaleej Times; (8) "Salman's Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", India Today; (9) "Cricket passion rides high as stars take to the pitch", The Hindu; (10) "The cricket star wars get hotter", The Times of India; (11) "Greasepaint to gloves", The Hindu; (12) "Celebs day out", The Hindu; (13) "Cheers to an exceptional performance", Deccan Herald; (14) "K-town puts on its game face", The Times of India; (15) "Joy's game for cricket", The Times of India. Those are all from the first page of my google news archive search (it's worth noting that some of those article are about the 2011 tournament because I was looking in the archive and the 2012 tournament only started three days ago). To refute some of the above points, I don't think anyone would claim that it's the quality of cricket that makes it notable (i.e. the fact that it doesn't pass WP:CRIN is irrelevant), but rather that it's notable because it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition, it has major crowds (some matches are even being played at Eden Gardens) and is being broadcast on an international television network, Sahara One (ref). Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to precedent created by the previous deletion. I don't see anything different about the season this year that makes it notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A celebrity in India can barely sneeze without the media and public going hype crazy, hence the above results. The people taking part might be notable, but that doesn't make the tournament or the cricket played in it notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But why isn't it notable? Because the quality of cricket is low? I'm afraid that's not how GNG works. It seems clear to me that this tournament meets GNG (the references are not about the celebrities, they are about the actual tournament) and no-one in this discussion has refuted that. I feel like you (plural) are using "just not notable" arguments, which are not supposed to carry much weight. Jenks24 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 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 redirect to Simon Janashia Museum of Georgia. (as nom) Correct museum identified. Will redirect. No need for this to run. StarM 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rustaveli Museum[edit]

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

I know that ghits don't mean anything but this museum is lacking any evidence that it exists, let alone is notable. While English language sources are likely an issue, I cannot even find mention of this in guide books or even travel blogs. I cannot imagine this would be the case if it were a notable museum. I'm of course happy to be proven wrong with coverage, but I cannot find anything to suggest notability. StarM 22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC) StarM 22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no such museum in Tbilisi. The image in the article shows Simon Janashia Museum of Georgia.--Kober^Talk 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a theatre called Rustaveli State Academic Theater . the flickr uploader here calls it Rustaveli Museum. Its the Simon Janashia Museum of Georgia it seems but its located on Rustaveli Avenue so he probably just called it that i say redirect to Simon Janashia Museum of Georgia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highcostectomy[edit]

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

Contested PROD, dictionary definition, no indication of general use Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism in the form of a dictionary definition. Take your pick. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought it was a synonym for "wallet biopsy" until I read the page. Ambiguous thus. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. It appears to be advertising. It appears this is a trademark of MediBid. The few references I can find appear to be used in the context of Medibid services. 2. Unreferenced. 3. No notability stated or found Pit-yacker (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic mix of spam and neologism. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 16 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo dispatch[edit]

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

Delete as notability has not been demonstrated nor any independent sources provided, despite tagging with these requirements in July 2010. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a notable protocol for British motoring organisations. The article has a good bibliography and just needs more work per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep This article is relevant to subjects regarding packet radio and communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.107.234.78 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net Die Een Vir My[edit]

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

For over 4 years of tagging no notability nor independent refs provided neither for song nor for authors Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; no refs provided; I couldn't find any independent coverage. - htonl (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless notability is established then it should be merged per WP:SONGCOVER. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:47, 19 January 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 Jonathan Burton. Speedy close as cut-and-paste-within-Wikipedia-without-attribution copyright violation. If the Burton page should be at this title it can be moved through the normal WP:RM process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1763[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG William 20:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable event, per the sources already provided in the article; there was substantial coverage then and there has been continuing coverage since. I note that after starting this AfD the nominator subsequently redirected this article to Jonathan Burton. I agree that there's no need for two articles; however, I'd be inclined to think the event article should be the one to keep with the "bio" redirected. Note: This has been discussed before (and closed without consensus) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Burton.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect reverted, since we have a discussion here. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue of the direction of the redirect Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 <-->Jonathan Burton must be decided in the corresponding talk pages. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the topic passes WP:GNG, the nom has given absolutely no rationale as to why they think the topic doesn't pass GNG. As Arxiloxos elaborates, this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the definition of WP:GNG is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," then it passes WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and revert as a cut and paste copyright violation of Jonathan Burton this should be reverted back to being a redirect to Burton. I would have reverted it but as a courtesy to this discussion it has been left for a moment. The current merge discussion is pointless you cant merge a copy and paste violation back into itself. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhavishnu Swami[edit]

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

Non notable former leader of a religious group. Article and sources do not meet the threshold for inclusion on WP. Wikid ^as© 18:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Quite notable in the context of the rapid expansion of ISKCON into Eastern Europe. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any verifiable reliable sources that indicate that this person should have a separate article under the policy of inclusion? I am asking for good coverage to verify notability. --Wikid ^as© 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There are no third party reliable sources to verify any type of notability. This person is not notable, and the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no verified notability. Ism schism, there is no such thing as strong delete, and I have denied speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 16 January 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 Dan Sanker. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborate: The Art of We[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources, none found via Google. No indication of notability. Was prodded for these reasons, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to book's author. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 15 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. P. Venugopalan[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable writer. Claims of awards cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-verifiable, self-written. The awards themselves are of unknown notability. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Page about "T.P Venugopalan" is True.Refer these sites www.dcbookstore.com, www.puzha.com, www.weblokam.com(25.10.2006.)Please Protect this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.10.213 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC) the content about t p venugopalan is correct and true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.10.213 (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer http://irapl.altervista.org/wkp-en/index.php?lemma=Malayalam%20literature 59.99.187.97 (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refer http://www.socialpulse.com/kerala-sahithyam-kerala-literature-malayala-sahithyam/profile/details59.99.187.97 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both links provided by 59.99.187.97 (talk · contribs) are articles that mirror the Wikipedia article on Mayalam literature. As we know, Wikipedia articles cannot be used a valid references within other articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refer http://www.puzha.com/malayalam/bookstore/malayalam-authors.html 117.206.11.98 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refer http://www.puzha.com/malayalam/bookstore/cgi-bin/author-detail.cgi?code=1655117.206.11.98 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These references verify that Venugopalan exists, not that he is notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer http://www.mathrubhumi.com/books/awards.php?award=24 117.206.10.216 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite an English language source for that from a reliable source? Otherwise, I go with delete. X.One ^SOS 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, sources do not need to be in English. It helps, because this is the English language Wikipedia and those who will be verifying the facts are likely to be English speakers, but it is not a hard requirement. That being said, and with the caveat that I do not speak Marathi, nor is there a convenient translation mechanism for the language, the last reference provided by the IP user appears to be a year-by-year list of winners of some award, with little other information. This would not constituted significant coverage even if I could understand it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:BASIC. --Ifnord (talk) 04:32, 21 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Piper's Gestures[edit]

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

Prod removed on the grounds that the creator took offense to a prod endorser calling it a borderline attack page. No indication that this "catalog" of a person's arm gestures meets notability criteria for inclusion. I'm guessing this is related to John Piper (theologian); assuming it is, since this is sourced to a blog I don't think this content even merits a mention in that article. Wikipedia is not a fansite. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting that someone thought this was worth making, nothing to support (and I'd still be good with deletion even if there was) so better to get rid of it. tutterMouse (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter what the article's creator says, I see it as borderline attack. (No-one will up and say 'Yes, I'm trying to have a go at so-and-so', will they?) If it isn't, then it's just irrelevant triviality and totally unencyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt to explain who Piper is or why he might be notable. Probably should have been a speedy delete. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication or explanation of notability (see the notability guideline, or, more dramatically, WP:42) or even basic importance. Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Completely unencyclopedic, nonnotable questionalble orignal research. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and as a borderline attack. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's not an attack page, it's unreferenced trivia not even worth merging to John Piper (theologian). Instawisdom (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable trivia, and an unmaintainable list waiting to happen. Kill it quick. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 03:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete as per above. WP:SNOW ? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vineet Soni[edit]

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

While the goals towards this person is working are lofty, I don't think that a few mentions in newsletters (even if one is from UNESCO) are enough to establish notability. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has modified and tagged with authentic references. This article has 6 references ( 4 from IUCN website, 1 from UNESCO and 1 from conservation evidence journal). In my openion, all are authentic and reliable references. Please share your comments. NehaIndia —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep Just passes the threshold of WP:GNG. Here is another ref about guggal and it has info on him. Bgwhite (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes Bgwhite , "Significant coverage" in reputed magazine Down to Earth (Indian science and environment magazine)has also included as reliable reference. NehaIndia —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC). — NehaIndia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the world by country[edit]

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

Not really "by country", and redundant to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, List of tallest freestanding structures in the world, List of tallest structures in the world, List of tallest structures in the world by country. Rcsprinter (converse) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest structures in the world by country though that there's four or five lists all regarding the same thing seems like splitting hairs, something for the talkpages I suppose. tutterMouse (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ instead to List of tallest buildings in the world. "Buildings" must be habitable to a certain extent, and this is what separates them from the broader category of "structures", which also includes freestanding towers, transmitters, etc. The hairsplitting is a reflection of classification in reliable sources, not a peculiarity of Wikipedia editing, so it should be maintained (see, e.g., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, discussion of definitions at List of tallest buildings and structures in the world), and it is more than just some pedantic nonsense because builders actually respond to these classifications and standards out of concern for the status of their project. This list in this AFD contributes nothing that I can see, however. It fully overlaps with the more comprehensive List of tallest buildings in the world without adding anything new, as it isn't really "by country" in the way that List of tallest structures in the world by country actually lists those within each country. postdlf (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking due to comment below. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete due to probable misinformation. --99.163.124.116 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but consider to Rename to List of countries by tallest buildings. Building, structure and freestanding structure are simply different things, thus this article (even incomplete) is not redundant to any existing article. --Jklamo (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm missing something, but not only is it redundant in scope to List of tallest buildings in the world#Tallest skyscrapers in the world, but it's also woefully incomplete compared to that other list, missing many entries. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, list that you link is listing all tallest buildings regardless of country (with criterion 250 tallest). List we discuss about is listing only one tallest building per country (thus can be complete with app. 200 records). --Jklamo (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, so it's basically "list of every country's tallest building". Well that could have been made more clear; I looked at that list several times and didn't get that was what it was going for, not from the title, not from the table itself. Hmm. I don't think your proposed rename clarifies that sufficiently either, though dropping "in the world" would at least remove some confusion. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Feel free to propose better name, mine was just very fast suggestion. And of course feel free to write better article lead, so the scope of the list will be clear from the first look. If article will be kept, i will try to expand and rewrite table section (i think that rank column may be removed, country column switched to first place and sort the list by country name rather then height of building). --Jklamo (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as suggested by Jklamo. Thisis not redundant, but a different organization, equally useful. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 21 January 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. (as none of the content has any reliable source) and redirect to Education in Kuwait#Nursery and primary education, where I have added its name. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian School of Kuwait (CSK)[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment by WP:SPA article creator, my concern remains that I can find no reliable sources indicating notability for this elementary school. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of proof of notability. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 16:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have also looked for coverage in reliable sources but not found any. --bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual to a suitable article, even if it is necessary to make one. There is no possible reason for not keeping the information, and none has been given. The deletion nomination just says it is not notable by itself, which is true enough; but a redirect to a list is in order. I note that this is what is done 80% of the time--the few deletions will be taken to del rev as inconsistent with the policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry what does "the few deletions will be taken to del rev as inconsistent with the policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" mean? I don't understand what you're saying. And what article do you recommend making, to merge this to? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the text in the article is both un-referenced and challenged, and is therefore not suitable for merging in its current state. That could change, if it were brought inline with our core verifiability policy by the addition of inline citations which are currently absent, per WP:CHALLENGED. But as the article stands now, a merge would not be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All content in Wikipedia is required to be referenced, so it is inappropriate to merge unreferenced data. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was my reaction, as well. DGG's views in this case sound, to me anyway, like WP:ITEXISTS. If this is a non-notable primary school, why would we merge it anywhere? Or worse, "make" a merge target that sounds, to me, like a WP:COAT article, simply for the purpose of preserving non-notable content? He surprised me with this one, coming as it does from an experienced admin, but perhaps I've misunderstood him.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a meta consensus on this kind of educational establishment. Redirect to Education in Kuwait with a merge of anything sourced. It would be extremely unlikely that the local press in Kuwait would have never written about this school but equally there would inevitably be issues with the independance of the sourcing as english local papers in the Gulf tend to reprint a lot of press releases on slow news days - which is pretty much every day... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Thanks. Yes, there are links to "American", "British" and other such schools in Education_in_Kuwait#Nursery_and_primary_education. I have have no objection if someone wants to add the school to the list, though importing text on who owns and runs it, if it is non-notable, would seem to me to be spamming the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 21 January 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. CactusWriter's work seems to have driven the consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visions-Partiet[edit]

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

per WP:ORG. Political party that has never taken a seat at any level of legislature Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ striking, see below. Doesn't merit a mention in the List of political parties in Denmark article, so certainly not notable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find nothing to support notability on gnews or gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is no requirement that a political party must have successfully elected its candidates. WP:ORG only requires significant coverage in independent sources and which verifies all the information, such as:

Bering, Marie (1 January 2003). "Nyt Parti Med Visioner" [New Party with Visions]. Jyllands-Posten. Retrieved 2012-01-14.

Jacobsen Turner, David (25 July 2007). "Den lange vej til Christiansborg" [The Long Way to Christiansborg]. Dagbladet Information. Retrieved 2012-01-14.

Phil-Andersen, Axel (27 July 2003). "Nyt Parti vil i Folketinget" [New Party will be in Parliament]. Jyllands-Posten. Retrieved 2012-01-14.

I also note that the party is included in the Den Store Danske, the Danish encyclopedia. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing opinion in the light of CactusWriter's sources. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 400 members according to their homepage (in Danish) and as far as I can see, didn't manage to actually become eligible for running for the Danish Parliament. Further I also only found 10 mentions in printed Danish media for a 10 year period. --Heb (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heb, while I agree with you that the party is obviously small and never received more than 0.1 of the vote in regional elections -- the size or importance of an organization, on its own, is not a valid parameter for determining notability (Please see WP:ORGIN). Our guidelines for inclusion only require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The reliable secondary sources (national newspaper coverage), confirmed by a reliable tertiary source (Gyldendals), meets the policy criteria of WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the splitting hair in this case is, how we interpret the word "significant". For me, 15 mentions in printed media and a mention in another public editable Wiki-based lexical (Gyldendals) doesn't constitute "significant". --Heb (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the General notability guideline is that "significant" is about quality rather than quantity. You can have a perfectly decent article with just two good sources. I changed my mind about this one, because the sources seemed to be more that just mentions. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a fringe party who has never elected anyone, and indeed never been eligible to have anyone elected, would still be notable if reliable sources gave it non-trivial coverage. This appears to be the case here. --Ifnord (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Beat[edit]

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

Non notable musical genre, with one practitioner. References are not reliable (and several are wikipedia links). Article is full of OR Gaijin42 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other practitioners of Tech Beat - entry coming very soon when the current list is collated Editman20 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

Trying my best to comply but having much trouble understanding all Editman20 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

I have posted to your talk page to discuss questions you may have. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Continuing to remove maintenance templates" - Was completely unintentional and did not know that I had done this.

RE: few participants - Whilst I accept that there are currently few patricipants, Tech Beat was created by the same group of people that created Drum and Bass (roots era of 1989 - 1991 when known as 'Progressive Hardcore') and Raggamuffin Hip Hop (2001). Most are now internationallly known and as with these previous forms, there were only a handful to begin with until it became promoted by 3rd parties as well as by the artists themselves.

One of the reasons that it has been so difficult for others to put together a definitive history of Drum and Bass (for example) is because those involved consciously at the start remained underground and didn't give a title to the new form and so didn't contribute. The result is one mess of a page that is in need of much attention and I feel that this is because it has been left to others outside of the industry to put it all together years later.

To avoid a potential future repetition of all of this with Tech Beat, I'm just trying to do what I feel should have been done first time around (with the relevant 3rd parties at the time) but for Tech Beat - the latest genre from these guys.

Their publishers, record co's and global distributors are supporting the genre and are also talking with many of the shippers to prepare them to follow suit in the near future as more releases come out, supported by live performances at top venues around the world starting early this year (2012).

In light of all of this, it would seem that this form is destined to take-off this year and so would it not be easier all-around, to let the page build naturally over the next 6 months, with a view to deleting it if this doesn't happen?

New genres do not tend to just pop up overnight globally from nowhere. In 25 years of working in the industry as a sound engineer I have always found that it is just small pockets of people working together who initially evolve genres into a new form.

Also, surely Wikipedia requires content submitted from those directly involved, and who therefore know the history intimately, rather than various commentators who may of had little direct involvement. (More artists will me added to the list very soon) Editman20 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Editman20Editman20 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If fact, wikipedia prefers those directly involved NOT to be editing related pages. Please see WP:COI and WP:OR.This is why we also required WP:RS and WP:V - so that those who do not have intimate knowledge can confirm what the article says (which is one of the main failings of this article) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that [leaving aside the issue of content quality], I do understand and accept the argument. On this basis, more than happy to let you guys decide what to do [even though there does seem to be only one objector]. Was just trying to prevent potential future problems re: content accuracy. Thanks for trying to sort it with me anyway. Editman20 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Editman20Editman20 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We almost always have deleted recently-created or newly-named musical genres; see for example, over the years these precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk (Sept. 2007), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian post-hardcore (July 2009), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelpedo punk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian fantasy metal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow grass (all Mar. 2010), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance metal (June 2010), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative bubblegum pop (Nov. 2010). We have "kept" such new genres only when there is some evidence that it is catching on with other musicians; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative metal (2nd nomination) (July 2010). The sad thing is, that even in a postmodern world, new music genres rarely catch on. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point, thanks for explaining.Editman20 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)editman20Editman20 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 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. Though I will say that to avoid another AfD, more of those sources Carrite mentions should be added in as soon as possible The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Philip Sousa Foundation[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources, no significant coverage found via Google. I'm rather surprised that there is no such coverage, but all I could find were various newspaper articles mentioning that the Foundation had handed out this or that award to a local band, with the foundation only mentioned in passing. The article has been tagged for improved references since June 2008. Apparently none are to be found. Thus the topic fails the general notability guideline and WP:ORG. Huon (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The foundation's best known function is honoring marching bands; these awards (which are the main subject of this Wikipedia article) are prestigious within the band world and well-covered in the media. Search string <"Sousa Foundation" Sudler> ("Sudler" being the name of many of the awards) yields hundreds of hits at GNews[8] and hundreds more in GBooks[9]; many of these hits relate to the particular winners of the award, but the cumulative effect of the coverage is to show the notability of the foundation's activities.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agency behind the Sousa National High School Honors Band, arguably the top honor band for marching musicians in the country. This organization has been around for decades and its band a big deal just as long, as THIS MAY 1983 ARTICLE from the Bryan [Ohio] Times indicates. The number of independently published articles on this band is substantial. If I were the one starting the article I would have written it on the band with "John Philip Sousa Foundation" being part of that story and redirecting there. This is sort of backwards, to my way of thinking — but the band and the foundation are two aspects of the same piece and must be considered in tandem, in my view. Clearly a notable entity. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagura Hiroo[edit]

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

Contested BLP:PROD. Still no references. I can't find independent articles in English or Japanese. Japanese sites are just mirrors of Japanese Wikipedia article or websites associated with the individual. Given the name of user who created the article, may also be COI violation. Fails WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michitaro (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to be notable. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter University Students' Federation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Inter University Students' Federation

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

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 13. Snotbot t • c » 14:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any reason for this nomination? Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Bad faith nomination, part of the recent vandalism of the page. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:39, 14 January 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. The article has undergone drastic change from the time it was originally nominated for deletion, so much that no consensus can possibly be determined from this debate. No consensus, with leave to speedy renominate if anyone feels it necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Flannery[edit]

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

1. Article does not contain any 3rd party references to indicate notability. 2. I've done a google search to attempt to find references, top 4 or 5 results aren't even about this artist, rest are dubious my space/facebook/twitter pages. Not a good sign of notability. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single independent reliable source is cited, and there seems to be no evidence elsewhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was created by Kikomusic, which is also a music label, note reference on article to kikomusic.wordpress.com. This may also indicates COI and BADNAME. Kikomusic has been indef blocked within the last hour for spamming. I have just Afd tagged the three new articles created by the editor:- The Shillelagh Demos, Edward and The Long Goodbye as promotional spam articles. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be guilty of failing WP:GOODFAITH but these edits look suspicious. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And another new user with interest only in Mr Flannery > Special:Contributions/Wildcatcardinal

Comment You seem to have a particular attraction to him as well. I just added a footnote. I trust this meets with your approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcatcardinal (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does my google search show his songaweek.com website as the 2nd result? All the footnotes look valid to these eyes. You are extemely guilty of failing WP:GOODFAITH Wildcatcardinal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.244.194 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a valid reference. It's a WP:PRIMARY site. I could do a google search for my name, get 50 results, doesn't make me WP:NOTABLE GimliDotNet (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets 66.64.244.194 and Wildcatcardinal Now blocked as sockpuppets of indef blocked spamlinker Kikomusic. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has a strong supporter in Stanton Swihart of Allmusic [10][11][12][13][14] and an article in NEPA magazine Connections (p. 32).[15] Probably needs one more strong source. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has a referenced quote from Allmusic calling the subject "one of the most gifted songwriters to emerge at the turn of the century", so I don't know where you got "Article does not contain any 3rd party references to indicate notability." The article is not in very good shape, but there's enough there to suggest notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The all music link was added days after the AFD was raised. Also I'd question if one review on AllMusic is enough to establish notability? According to WP:BASIC you need multiple sources. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never presume an editor is too stupid to check the page history, which shows the reference was already there when you opened the AfD: [16] Not that it would make any difference when the reference was added (indeed, Wikipedia encourages editors to address the issues raised in an AfD by editing the article: WP:Guide to deletion), but the fact that you're resorting to lying about the article's history makes me doubt even more whether there's any reason to delete it. Finally, no one said that "one review on AllMusic is enough to establish notability". As I've already implied, the article contains several claims to notability which can, in all likelihood, be supported with further references from reliable independent sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine mistake on my part. No dishonesty intended. Just like to add with over 5000 edits this is the first time I have been accused of lying to get my point across. I am mortified :( GimliDotNet (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Significant coverage in local source: "Songwriter's Infusion Rooted in Anthracite" from The Times Leader.
Flannery received the 2000 Eric Breindel Journalism Award, as verified by "A prized remembrance" from Crain's New York Business. Goodvac (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's outstanding work. Could the second link be another Scranton Tom Flannery? Curious why you aren't nudged towards !voting even with the first (i'm thinking of striking my "weak" above). 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:22, 13 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) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With Allmusic, Connections Magazine, The Times Leader and the WVIA source there are now enough reliable and independent sources to proof Flannery's notability. And we should in fact determine if he is also the Flannery of columnist fame. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 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, organization with no showing of minimal importance. Full text: The Monarchy of Zeymah is a micronation founded January 12, 2012 by its three citizens, Alex Smith, Joe Stockert, and Kevin Tang. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Monarchy of Zeymah[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP Shirt58 (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship (game)/Combinatorics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battleship (game)/Combinatorics

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

Disputed prod. As the author has stated on the talk page 'I intended this page not as an article on its own but as supplement...' This is not so much a demonstration of a mathematical proof as an exhaustive listing of the various iterations one can put the different pieces in. Of no encyclopaedic value, a link to the programme that calculates this table could be included in the external links of the Battleship (game) page. Benea (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that everyone is able to compile and run this program. I don't know how portable it is and the computation needs a quarter hour, not everyone may have the patience. Since people asked for the raw numbers on the web, I thought it would be a good idea to place the numbers where they can be found easily. For the motivating questions see http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/58769/how-many-ways-can-we-place-these-ships-on-this-board, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8374/battleship-permutations . HenningThielemann (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. if you don't like the page, how about moving it to my user name space instead of deleting it? HenningThielemann (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Not a useful article, and the material is similar in essence to a bunch of stats. -- Whpq (talk) 21:42, 19 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krea[edit]

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

This company lacks any significant coverage in secondary sources. The kinds of search results I found are press-release or "self-publishy"-type articles from sources that lack editorial independence. Therefore, delete, as notability has not been established. SENATOR2029 talk 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SENATOR2029 talk 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; this business makes no credible claim of minimal importance, and borderline patent nonsense: another Market Research Firm specialising in online and offline panels advertising on Wikipedia. Online and offline panels? May mean something to the author, but it's not something that anyone who doesn't already know what they're talking about is going to learn from. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 13 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meetro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Both references and external links show notability of the concept, but this SaaS itself fails WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Paul Bragiel. The software looks as if it was mildly notable in its time, and so is still probably a useful search term. However, most of the article consists of technical details that weren't sourced when they were added to the article and are probably unsourceable now. The details that are sourced tend to relate to its business side - a short paragraph, based on these, in the Paul Bragiel article would both be relevant there and provide sufficient details for anyone wanting to know what Meetro was. PWilkinson (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In order of appearance: (1) the SaaS itself is discussed on margin of trivial notice, with 100% of coverage being about future expectations, the article mainly goes about company and social messaging concept; (2) can't comment, as I can't access it; though I'm not sure Chicago Sun-Times is something one can use to prove the notability of software; (3) actually implies that the reader is not aware of the software (note: at least the third article in the series); (4) WP:PAYWALL and (5) you must be kidding: it lists Meetro along with 5 other non-notable apps. Conclusion: all the 5 sources imply the lack of notability. See WP:NSOFT for how this should affect the article. So how do these sources show that Meetro deserves its own article instead of a common article for social messaging SaaS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. SL93 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This comment is likely to change the discussion output most. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not everything needs to be an argument. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and WP:NSOFT is an essay and an article can't be deleted or merged because of an essay. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing can be removed or merged because of an essay, guideline or policy. Something can be deleted or merged because there are valid reasons to do so, and this is the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is your opinion and I disagree. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Selective merge: This is as notable in the form of a post-2001 silicon valley internet startup. Anyone nominating an article for deletion must remember that as an article is deleted, its contents and all history is permanently erased from history. If you are going to delete this article, please first move relevant content into the founder's Paul Bragiel article. 24.7.27.209 (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not specific to this article, but perhaps a better solution than keep/delete/merge with founder -- I noticed User:Czarkoff and User:Ihcoyc recently on other AfD pages about silicon-valley-based startups, and they had similar reasons for nomination. They were real companies with enough support to have a wikipedia article, were covered some in the news, but did not individually fit notability requirements. In the case of Meetro and others, I will agree that the software is not notable today. However, I do believe the existence and culture of such companies to be notable. I would be satisfied if they could be merged into an article about such internet startups, summarized and combined, with much less emphasis on the actual software. 24.7.27.209 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of PWilkinson's comment. He said the company was mildly notable in it's time. Mildly notable is notable, and if it once was notable, then it remains notable permanently; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , which means it contains an historical record. The relevant policy is NOT DIRECTORY. If we were merely a current business directory, then we'd delete it. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a good rationale to merge the company info (a small section in the article) somewhere. The article is about software, and notability is not inherited. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability under WP:ORGIN. No demonstration that this product has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. --Ifnord (talk) 04:22, 21 January 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. In accordance with usual AFD custom, comments from new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brosix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article previously deleted in AFD process, several prior WP:SPEEDY nominations contested. Still the article lacks any references that could be used to establish notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, reviewing the "references" show that this is a PR snow job. We're at least making the Wikipedia spam consultants work for their pay now, which I suppose is something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article used to be with good quality, aligned with Wikipedia standards.[22] Somehow it was ruined, which is evidence that this is not a PR job. If it was, the company should have kept it in a good quality. I suggest, that we just revert to this version and then apply new information, if any, because this version is from July 2010 (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: I am curious: Why am I notified of this AfD? I am not the original author. I did clean up the article a bit, but so did many others. Fleet Command (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified people who edited this article most. The rationale was that if you took time to edit it, you probably might have an opinion on it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh! I see! So, it was not a bot's notice; you sent it personally. How very lovely of you. Thanks for your consideration and care. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is on Wikipedia for more than 2 years. There are 24 external references talking about Brosix. Many people contributed to this article in the last 2 years. Why do you think this is not notable and should be deleted? stefanch2 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanch2 (talk • contribs)
- Well, I must say Stefanch2 seems to have a point. Is About.com not a secondary source? I am not saying it clinches the matter, but when it comes to notability, where do we stand? Fleet Command (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't think that "about.com" is a reliable source at all. And even if it was, it is still not enough. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Don't think that "about.com" is a reliable source", ha? Can you please define "reliable source". If about.com is not, who is? (Stefanch2 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      - Good point. We have no formal definition of reliable sources, but those writing about everything out there with lack of expertise aren't generally considered reliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Brosix has been included in a US patent with both Skype and Cisco, showing that the brand is every bit as strong as others in this space. - [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.154.198 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it only shows labour relationships and budget. Notability is not inherent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no relation between the patent holder and the company. Skype, Cisco, MIcrosoft are also mentioned in the patent. Following your thoughts all companies are related with the patent holder, which is not true. Please, don't say unproved claims. (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    - What makes you think so? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S.: could it happen you've inserted this comment between others to make harder to spot it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Brosix won three years in a row "Best IM" awards from about.com - a very notable source, 2011 - [24], [25], [26], 2010 - [27], 2009 - [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Also it seems is popular in some communities [33], [34], [35] (Stefanch2 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Linkfarm, blog and forums. None of these sources can even be accepted for inline citation, not to say about notability. Oh, and the so called "awards" are in fact readers' awards, placing it right after such "notable" clients as imo.im and Nimbuzz (note the links' colors). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where do you see linkfarm and forums in the external links? I don't. Readers' awards means "awards by people". Isn't this same idea of Wikipedia - people valued opinion and contribution. I think readers' awards are more honored than any others (Stefanch2 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    - Stefanch2, he is referring to your last three links. They obviously do not comply with WP:RS. Still, your About.com links remain, but lets discuss them in the thread above. Fleet Command (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if those readers awards were truly given by readers' vote (which is really dubious), this would be a typical case of unreliable source, as evidently lacks any degree of fact checking. The word "linkfarm" was a reference to "about.com", and a really accurate one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you read the About.com links, you will see this is definitely not a link farm. They just structured their site in a way to have a separate page for each category, the nomination and voting are also separate pages. I am not here to protect About.com, but Czarkoff, you still didn't define "reliable source". Your only arguments are unfounded accusations, sorry. Second time, can you please define "reliable source" ? And don't make me read Wikipedia articles - I already did it very carefully.(Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
        Given the ratio of depth and scope of coverage, it is a link farm. I would consider its reliability as that of Facebook posts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page isn't worthy of the company that absolutely should be included in Wikipedia. Let's update the page instead of deleting it. (Java Kingpin (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- If you believe that company is notable, you might want to write an article about company. This AfD is about the IM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - actually it looks like that is the name of the product and the company. Its a little confusing,but there are other entries for companies here. The page needs a serious re-write to make it more informational and less commercial, but I think that deletion may be a bit extreme in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.238.73 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neutrality issues apart, we have a worse problem here: there is no single source that can be used to establish notability of software. Each of keep votes fails to move forward in this regard. As it is now, it has no chance. Frankly, the description of software suggests that the eletion is a safe choice, as this software isn't likely to ever become notable, given the technical issues — vendor lock-in isn't very popular these days. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Czarkoff, Following your thoughts, we should also delete the Skype page, because "vendor lock-in isn't very popular". It is easier to destroy (delete) than to build. Let's not destroy this page and try to upgrade it. (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
        The problem is not with vendor lock in, it is with no proof of notability. And vendor lock-in in software with initial release date in 2006 and lack of notability by 2012 shows that the argument about useful edit history in case of future notability also doesn't apply here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why are you trying to delete one of the best IM services for companies? It's absurd! [36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.72.185 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT? That's not to say that the claim is ridiculously incorrect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your claims are obviously not reasonable and blind-purposefully negative. You do not pose facts, but just oppose all the positive comments. Note that AFD requires objective opinions, but not personal attitude. If you do not like Brosix, you should not use it. But hundred of thousands do, and it is enough notable for this article to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.230.229 (talk)
    - Well, he has the right to do so. In fact, that is why we AFDs in Wikipedia: To discuss. Wikipedia is not run by votes. And he has a point: Even the best IM software must provide significant coverages in reliable secondary sources, or else they do not merit an article in Wikipedia. If you love this article, well, so do I. But when it comes to Wikipedia, one must respect Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of the articles. Fleet Command (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - FleetCommand, I agree, he has the right to express his opinion. The other people also have the same right. If you love this article, please say how to save and upgrade it. Any constructive opinion is welcome. (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
        FleetCommand actually tried several times to express his opinion in a soft way. I'll summarize it for you: this article would have a chance to survive AfD if reliable sources ever existed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please also note, that this discussion is growing rapidly, but the amount of links is still limited to one independent source with disputed (at least by me) reliability, primary sources and blogs — in terms of the stated problem we stand where we started. Even worse, we standing exactly at the same level of notability which was previously considered worth of speedy deletion (see previous AfD). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: back in 2006 the article about this software was created by user:Stefantch (see contributions) and speedy deleted soon after that. This article was later re-created by user:KTMG (see contributions) now mainly defended by User:Stefanch2 (see contributions). Pretty alarming IMHO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Side note: The article already passed the notability review in 2009 [37]. Why Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is questioning it now? And why Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is the ony one who wants it deleted? Pretty alarming IMHO. Stefanch2 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link reveales that the sources were considered not establishing notability; the reviewer took KTMG's (author's) word about the article in early stage of development. Evidently, nothing has really changed since then. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I don't remember it happening that way, and I'm the author. I was given a chance by the reviewer to add more links in order to get past the review. That is all! It was not taken simply on my word that the topic was notable, and I don't believe that any reviewer here would simply take any single users word on the issue. That said, the page has been altered quite a bit since I wrote it, and need to have the commercial aspect taken out. Lets be honest, a fair number of smaller companies are listed here. Does Tekserve really need a page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekserve ? No, but we as a community allow it because they provide a service and the page is encyclopedic in nature. PS- next time you are getting ready to delete a page, you might want to notify the author and not just the frequent editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTMG (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Side note: He also questions another well known article Meebo and seems he is the only one who wants it deleted too. His arguments there are also weak as here. Pretty alarming IMHO. Stefanch2 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the WP:SPA you linked, you might easy find that it definitely isn't about me. Furthermore, in case of Meebo I want it merged, and still it is a controversial point. This article is really very different, with the main difference being lack of WP:RS coverage and thus failure to pass even WP:GNG. That's not to say that I already saved several articles that were worth keeping, with some (example) being a hard fought victories. This case is just plain opposite: no single reliable source and no indication of notability in other regards (apart from WP:ILIKEIT rationale). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Notable software, mentioned in a US patent together with Skype, Cisco, Microsoft. It seems Brosix is notable enough that others recognize it. [38] (Stoyansk (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- So notable that you registered an account specifically to defend it? If so, you might want to read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG and list here some sources that would be acceptable according to this policies. That would help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but revise as needed to avoid promotionalism. AfD is not necessary in order to edit an article.The awards are sufficient to show notability DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some links that might be helpful for the notoriety issue to help the discussion not go around in circles, as it seems to be doing. Here are the links:

Tech Crunch - http://www.crunchbase.com/company/brosix
Inside Social - http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2011/05/brosix-a-business-oriented-sky.html
App Brain - has community votes as well - http://www.appbrain.com/app/brosix-instant-messenger/com.brosix.android

Would any of these qualify as notable enough? I think that Tech Crunch is certainly reliable and well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.238.73 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally because first is directory entry, second, though might be considered weak WP:RS as it is a blog hosted by local newspaper) is very short to be considered a review and "LXer user let me know", third is author-generated. As everywhere on Wikipedia comments don't count as directly forbidden in WP:SPS. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability under WP:ORGIN. No demonstration that this product has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. --Ifnord (talk) 04:20, 21 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Nabi (footballer)[edit]

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

PROD with contested with the rationale "Remove Prod. Played in 3 games for a team in the Pakistan Premier League, the top professional football league in Pakistan", but the PPL is not a fully-professional league, meaning that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have won the 2009 PPL Goalkeeper of the Year award, which is a bit more impressive - I suspect therefore the source that shows him only playing 3 games is incomplete. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't matter if he has played in three games or three hundred - he has not played in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original PROD'er. This footballer fails WP:GNG, and has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – the Pakistani top division is not fully professional, thus his article fails WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Pakistan Premier League is a fully professional league. All players get payed. It is at the top of the Pakistani pyramid. Just because Pakistan is not on the fully-professional league list, does not mean it isn't a fully professional league. The articles says the list of leagues is incomplete. Morocco, Angola and Cameroon leagues have been added to the list over the last few months. Bgwhite (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source to back that up? Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched for sources that might indicate the league's fully professional status and I've come across this (dated 29 December 2011), which states the Geo Super Football League "can be considered as arguably the closest thing to a fully professional set-up, Pakistani football has ever produced." This would indicate that the Pakistan Premier League is not fully pro. Although, I've also found this (dated 11 January 2012), which seems to imply that the PPL is becoming professional, although the language isn't too clear. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on the first source, the way I read the second one is that PPL is just going fully pro now, suggesting it wasn't in 2010 when Mr. Nabi made his appearances. In any case, both sources are too vague to prove or disprove anything. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 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' Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Siddiqi[edit]

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

This individual is notable - he meets WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG - but he has requested (via e-mails to myself) that we delete the article as he is worried about vandalism, as well as other concerns from his family. I posted at WP:BLPN and got no real help, and tried at WP:RPP to protect the article so that only registered users could edit as a compromise, but that request was declined. I informed him of this and he came back to me saying that he wants it deleted, so I'm putting it up here. I'd also ask that after deletion (if it happens) this page and redirects are SALTed to prevent further creation by well-meaning editors.Giant Snowman 09:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per WP:NOTCENSORED. If we start removing information on notable individuals at their whim, where does it end? Do we delete any negative information about a living person because they want it deleted, even if it has been amply reported elsewhere? Deleting this would set the dangerous precedent that article subjects own their articles - they do not; if the information is available in reliable sources, it should be available on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well - I think the article should remain (I mean, it's not even negative in the slightest!) but he's now mentioned lawyers, and I didn't know where else to turn seeing as the noticeboard was no help. Giant Snowman 09:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure he wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally - every single sentence in the article is reliably referenced, so we aren't publishing anything which hasn't already been release into the public domain. Per WP:DOLT: If you aren't sure what to do with a legal threat, email the legal queue on OTRS, at info-enwikimedia.org where specially authorized users and staff can assess the situation. That might be your best avenue. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give that a shot. Giant Snowman 10:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Yunshui. If it really is the author's request (like how Scott Voyles was deleted) then PROD it. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate" - obviously not the correct way to go about this. Giant Snowman 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; speedy close. I hate to sound like a broken record but wikipedia is not censored, and we don't want to set a dangerous precedent of deletion at the subject's request. This is exactly why the Italian wikipedia was threatened with complete closure – a proposed new law in Italy which would have obligated any publisher to retract information regarding any living subject at the subject's request, regardless of truth. Since the nomination statement actually admits the subject is notable, I don't see what further discussion can achieve here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible. Article is adequately referenced, in a good state, and passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. There is no reason to delete it. – Kosm1 fent 17:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. Other considerations are not relevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: Can't fathom any plausible reason to delete this. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a justification. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 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 Survivor: South Pacific. The "keep" !voters do not give policy-based arguments for retention. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Clarke[edit]

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

Notability rests on one event: the subject's participation in Survivor: South Pacific.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only notability is being a winner on Survivor: South Pacific. Vincelord (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the other winners have articles so why shouldn't she? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh11111 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Every winner has a page, so she should too. KJoJo2011 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I note we actually have a category specifically for such articles: Category:Survivor winners. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Subject is notable only for her participation in Survivor, and all information in the article (except Clarke's date of birth, etc.) can be found in Survivor: South Pacific. Also, the fallacious argument outlined in WP:OTHERSTUFF is not grounds for keeping an article — "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." — Untitledmind72 (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2011 (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) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non-noteworthy. In two to ten years it will be so "who?" If other "contest winners" have articles, then it is probably time to revisit those entries to see if there is more non-noteworthy articles for deletion. Can I say that we measure against the criteria for inclusion, not relative to the merits of another article. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the point is that if this article is not considered noteworthy then most of the other winners should have their articles considered non noteworthy. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a general discussion over this issue rather than a seperate one for each winner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh11111 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all winners have articles. Runners up usually are not notable. –BuickCentury Driver 13:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winner of Survivor, one of the most popular TV shows ever, is definitely a notable event. Just look at the other 22 winners & tell us who DOESN'T have an entry. Guess we need to delete all those also. My honest opinion .... a few Wiki-Users didn't like Sophie & wanted someone else to win, so they are taking out their frustration on her article. Childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 02:08, 12 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) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: will give the article one more thorough week of discussion. Arguments state that the subject is only notable for one event, while others state that winning Survivor: South Pacific, and the fact that all of the other winners of Survivor have articles, warrants a keep for the article. I'll relist the article a second time to generate a more clear consensus. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Survivor: South Pacific. B.Wilson sums it up quite nicely, above. We do have a guideline that states people are not notable for single events; we do not have a guideline that says winning a TV series where other winners have articles makes someone notable (in fact, we have a guideline that says the exact opposite). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect Yunshui has this exactly correct: per WP:1E this is not notable, and per WP:OTHERSTUFF anyone who thinks this unfair may take any or all other single-event articles to AfD as well, please do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As above, this is classic one event stuff. If any other Survivor winners come up for an afd, I'd probably vote to delete those as well. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the show article, no notability, but only one event. Some Survivor contestants (including winners as well) have less notability and done nothing after the show. ApprenticeFan ^work 10:02, 14 January 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. Perhaps a discussion could be held regarding the exact definition of "high school." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic School, Irbid[edit]

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

Middle schools and lower grades are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the article: "The school's teaching level reaches up to 10th grade." That is sufficient to make it a high school/secondary school. High schools are usually kept per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. I had understood that while we usually keep high schools (schools that reach 12th grade) per editor consensus, that is not the case with middle schools/junior high schools and other schools that are junior to high schools. Can you perhaps point me to the consensus that middle schools/junior high schools are kept, that you refer to? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 10th grade (age 16) is the cusp for a high school since that is the level when a school leaving certificate is awarded. TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I did understand that high schools (through 12th grade) were presumptively keeps, I did not understand there to be a consensus that schools through 10th grade -- on the cusp of high school, but short by 2 years of the typical high school -- were presumptively keeps. If there is a discussion you can point me to that demonstrates a consensus for that, that would be most helpful. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school per TerriersFan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run of the mill primary school with no claim to fame. The school does not qualify as a high school. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a primary school. It teaches to Grade 10 as already explained. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and it teaches Tawjihi which is International Baccalaureate equivalent and is a university-entrance qualification; only high schools teach to university entrance. Primary schools, by contrast, teach to high school-entrance. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article, the school only teaches up to grade ten, and its students don't finish the requirements for Tawjihi, which reqires education up to grade twelve. The students do not receive a finishing diploma equivalent to the complete Tawjihi diploma. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not provide education through 12th grade, so is more of a primary and middle school, and as such does not enjoy the common outcome of an assumption of notability accorded high schools. The sources provided do not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2011 (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) 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmm, 10th grade — tough call. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness or lack thereof. Carrite (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, no sources indicating notability, and technically more of a middle/elementary school. Could have some potential if it were sourced and expanded, I suppose. dalahäst ^(talk) 11:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG and is on the cusp of current school guidelines but its to close for me.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of grades towards the completion of secondary education is 12 in the united states, but it can be different in other countries. The general meaning is the grade which prepared for university, but this too varies in different countries--as does the actual academic accomplishment expected at that point. Fortunately, there is a true international standard, the International Baccalaureate. Any school teaching up to that level is a true secondary school, and as Epeefleche says, we regard all such as notable. This school teaches to that level, so there is only one conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misread, then. The school does not finish the IB program. Nor does it finish the Jordanian requirements. Nor are its students "prepared for university". The school just teaches the first year or two of each curriculum. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Dominus appears to be correct here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 17 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) 07:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG; which high schools are not exempt from. Admittedly, sourcing may be difficult due to systemic bias; I'd be open to changing my mind if more sources arise. But until that happens it just looks like a run of the mill school. Them From Space 08:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Year 10 is a high school, lack of sources does not mean that the school isn't notable. As pointed out by several people previously, systemic bias makes it difficult to round up RS'.. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
psss... you already !voted... Them From Space 17:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warfare (Kabam)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Global Warfare (Kabam)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD, rationale was "WP:NN product. A great example of why Wikipedia needs a speedy deletion criterion for articles about products that do not assert the product's notability or importance.". Listing here due to lack of notability which I doubt sourcing could really solve. tutterMouse (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a product that fails WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a game that fails WP:GNG fpr products. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did any of you actually look for sources? [39][40][41][42][43]([44]). All WP:VG/RS. Passes GNG with multiple independent reliable non-trivial coverage sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "did any of you look for sources" indignancy would hold if you hadn't included at least one press release amongst your "reliable sources". You've also cited a source that doesn't discuss this game at all ([45]) and a puff piece based entirely on an interview with Kabam's general manager. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the "puff piece" counts quite nicely toward WP:N. A reliable source doing an interview with a source to discuss something the source is working on is generally just fine. We have interviews with actors and directors all the time as RSes about a movie or TV show. The PR piece clearly is bogus though. Still, it appears 3 people didn't go looking for sources, didn't find them or felt they weren't enough somehow and so !voted to delete here. That's not good. You really shouldn't !vote in an AfD without looking at or looking for sources. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could equally be said that nor should you !vote keep "per sources" without carefully reading the sources presented. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at 3. They were enough, didn't really need to look at the rest as WP:N was met. But yeah, I should have clarified I'd only looked at some of them. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So including sources for some more content beyond GNG somehow disqualifies the actual sources for GNG? I even put the press release in brackets for this very reason. It took me less that 30 seconds to come up with at least three sources from what are reliable video game review sites. Of course I asked why three editors couldn't find any sources. The nominator even expressed desire for a CSD case on this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for disclosure, I wasn't the original person who PRODded the article, that was User:Toddst1 and I did check for sourcing before making this nom and found them slightly lacking for some of the reasons Mkativerata has with them. I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if better sourcing can be found but I don't think some of these sources are reliable enough and others which are not talking about the game itself but the developer. tutterMouse (talk) 13:47, 2 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) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. Ouch. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources by Hellknowz. Plenty of third party coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 21:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing press releases and sources that look like blogs or community based content sites—not what I call reliable. Pol430 talk to me 23:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources 1, 2 and 3 presented by Hellknowz don't obviously fail the dodginess test. Sources 1 to 3 are marginal themselves. They are short, colloquially-written reviews, often in the first person, containing spelling and grammatical errors, that aren't the sober assessments of the game that one would expect from a genuinely reliable source. After reading the sources, we still don't know a number of basic facts about the game, such as how many people use it? That's why we can't rely solely on these kinds of reviews as "significant coverage in reliable sources". Significant coverage would give us the important facts rather than high-level poorly written opinions about the game's playability. Seen in that context, the coverage isn't significant at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. The coverage is in reliable sources that have been vetted in the past. And you feel they don't provide coverage of a caliber required because some are in first person and don't cover certain facts you'd like? Only 6 is actually problematic as a PR bit. That's a really really high bar you are manufacturing. Your right to expect that high a bar I suppose, but (much) more than 90% of WP doesn't have 5 sources. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean "vetted"? What "high bar" are you talking about? The bar set by WP:RS is "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I hardly think opinion pieces riddled with spelling and grammatical errors are going to meet that. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I now know what you mean by vetting: WP:VG/RS. That's written by a wikiproject. Frequently that wikiproject tries to peddle sources like these dodgy reviews at FAC as reliable and frequently gets shot down. See for example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Red and Blue/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/archive2. Proper vetting, like the vetting at FAC, frequently finds these kind of sources to be below the mark. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reviews are opinion pieces. That does not make them a non-RS. I only read the first FAC review and don't think they got "shot down". Could you please specify the spelling an grammar errors that seem to be bothering you? Hobit (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Aside from the generally awful writing, specific examples of errors include (at least one for each of sources 1-3) "range of untis", "Any players or alliance of players can attempt", "a massively multiplayer social game", "The biggest gameplay addition in Global Warfare is existence of strategic resources", "providing a higher level of competition between players, as well cooperation between allied players", and "Two hundred cash will run you $20." It's vomit. A source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would not be so poorly written. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Disappointing typos/wording aside, both IGN and Gamezebo are recognized as reliable sources at Wikiproject Video games - See WP:VG/S. Whether you like the "writing style" or not, there is coverage in what is considered reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        A wikiproject does not have the capacity to define for the rest of the project what are and are not reliable sources. The evidence here strongly suggests that in respect of the six sources given by Hellknowz, the wikiproject has got it wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you're free to have your opinion, I'm just pointing out to the closing admin that there's currently a consensus there against what you're saying saying about those sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If there is really a concern regarding sources such as IGN and Gamezebo it should be brought up at WP:RSN because if a WikiProject can't determine if a source is reliable or not a single editor who disagrees with the sources should defently not be making that determination.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources provided are reliable and significant enough to establish notabliity. --MuZemike 19:36, 2 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) 07:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three sources in the article, GameZebo (major casual game review site), IGN (one of the two major Stateside video game sites, the other being GameSpot), and one from Venture Beat where the writer's credentials are "Dean previously worked at the San Jose Mercury News, the Wall Street Journal, the Red Herring, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register and the Dallas Times Herald." I see no issue with notability here. Someone another 18:24, 13 January 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 Kit Berry. Jeremy (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewylde[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced (since 2005), in-universe page about a fictional town in a book series written by a non-notable self-published author. The article was written by an editor whose main contributions were about the author and the books. (The books are said to be published by Moongazy Publishing, which I've discovered is a company that the author herself created. [46]) A search brought up nothing to show that the series as a whole or the author are notable, let alone the fictional town the series is set in. The author's page seems to have been redirected to Stonewylde due to a lack of sources. It's borderline promotional enough to be speedied, but vague enough that I'm taking it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Correction. Her books have been picked up by Orion Publishing. However, being published by an actual publisher does not give the book series or the fictional town (which is really what the Stonewylde article is about) notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
~~Delete~~amending !vote, see below ~~Yet another example of why we need a speedy tag for self-published books...~~ No coverage in RS, same goes for the books, which I see are also up for AfD. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our notability standards. Nice work by Tokyo ... I missed this one ... actually, I see I only tagged it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. I suggest retaining this article. The author is notable and has had some success. The article incorrectly attributed the Stonewylde series to the wrong publisher. The Stonewylde series is published by Gollanzc and imprint of the Orion Publishing Group. Would it be useful to add an external link to the Orion Publishing Group to improve sources? 13:3, 13/01/2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.241.9 (talk) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good call, IP195. Had I done the sensible thing and checked a publishing database myself, I would have picked up on that. I can confirm that the books are published by Orion. However, that doesn't necessarily make them notable. Unfortunately, linking to Orion's website doesn't do anything to meet the notability guidelines, since it isn't considered an independent source. For verification of details, it would suffice, but for establishment of notability independent sources are needed.

For this reason I stand by the Delete vote I placed above - there do not appear to be any independent sources covering this topic. However, I'm grateful to you for finding and pointing out the error in identifying the publisher. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *gets can-opener, opens can of worms* Whilst Stonewylde, as a setting, doesn't appear to be notable, I think there's a case to be made that Kit Berry, currently a redirect to this article, is. She's been the subject of a number of articles (I've found four so far [47], [48], [49], [50]) from the Dorset Echo, and she was also extensively quoted in The Telegraph([51], albeit on the subject of holidays rather than books). With that in mind, the author herself might scrape past the WP:GNG, in which case this article should be a redirect to an article on her. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people debate several different ways on this, but the only coverage that could really be used to show notability are the articles that focus on her as a novelist and they're all local. I've heard some say that you need more than one local paper to cover the subject and then I've heard people say that it's enough. As far as the holiday article goes, I'm not sure if that could be a source indicating notability. Wouldn't that be more of a trivial source at best since it only quotes her briefly? Not trying to be difficult, just wanting to work this out before someone does this and then finds that someone's tagged it for one thing or another due to it only really having the Dorset Echo articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

You're not being difficult at all. I tend to agree that purely local coverage doesn't grant notability (I even seem to remember a guideline on it, but I'm dammned if I can find it now), and the Telegraph piece is definitely useless for notability. For those reasons, I haven't started making any changes to try and create a Kit Berry article (might also need an admin to reverse the redirect, anyway). Yunshui 雲‍水 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above astute observations, and commend Tokyo and Yunshui on approaching this in a "let's figure out the best result" approach, rather than the "let me prove myself right" approach we so often see at AfD and the like. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this subject is notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A published book isn't automatically notable, let alone the world of a published book. Reviews from reliable sources are scant; there is a very brief one at the Financial Times, and that's about it. Needs more reliable sourcing before this can be called notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you kidding me? A nonexistent town in a work of fiction of questionable notability that was written by an author of questionable notability? This is like AfD Inception; non-notability within non-notability. Inter change able|talk to me 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain After some investigation, it appears that Kit Berry has appeared in various articles about her as an author in relation to Stonewylde. These include, but are not limited to; The Times [52], The Bookseller, various UK wide high circulation off-line magazines including SFX Magazine, Yours, House Beautiful, Best Magazine, Spirit and Destiny, Western Morning News (OK... another local paper). She has also appeared on various radio stations, including BBC Radio with Judi Spiers. Additional online presence includes various book review blogs about her books and Stonewylde. And lastly, she has also undertaken extensive signings at Waterstones and other UK bookshops and events. All seems pretty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.21.161 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — 31.80.21.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All of which might amount to notability for the author. This is an article about a fictional place in a book or books by that author and notability is not inerited: that is, a subject does not become notable merely by association with another subject which is. To establish notability of this subject we need sources which discuss this subject, namely this fictional milieu, in detail. Not the books they appear in, or the author who writes about it, but this subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who is surprised to find that the two SPA IPs geolocate to the same location?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Cusop said, those sources show notability for the author and if you can find enough reliable sources, I have absolutely no problem with someone undoing the redirect from the author's page and reverting that back to an article. (Here's a direct to the page: [53]) The only thing is that while the link given above did go to a search page where I see an article about the author, but when I click on the article title I get redirected to the main page. A search for the article redirected me back to the main page as well. From what I can see of the article on the author's page, it appears to be your typical "about the author" sort of post and would be best used in a page about the author. However, without an actual link, it's hard to use it as a source. We can't link to the author's page as that's a primary source and you can only use a primary source when you have multiple independent sources that back it up. In any case, the topic at hand here is about an article written about the fictional town in the series and you have to have articles talk specifically about the town in the book series rather than an article that's about the book series or about the author. For an example of what would be needed to have an article about a fictional location, check out the article for Hogwarts. You need a lot of articles to prove notability for a fictional location, not just primary sources or links about the author. The author's notability is not what is being discussed here and again, I have no problem with someone trying to do an article about the author. (I do want to state that if you write an article, the amount of signings and the locations thereof are not proof of notability, but in-depth articles that interviews the author as she's getting ready to do a signing would be.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

On the assumption that the last IP's comments about sources are correct (the Times one is paywalled, but I have a work subscription to The Bookseller so will check it and the rest on Monday), changing !vote to Delete and redirect to (as-yet-uncreated) Kit Berry. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably asking too early, but I was wondering if you'd checked the sources yet. If so and they're good, then I wouldn't mind changing my votes on the books currently up for AfD from delete to redirect to a Kit Berry entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I'm on the fence with this one. The Times article, as John explains below, could well be sufficient. The Bookseller article is basically a rehash of a Gollancz press release, so whilst convenient for WP:V, not so good for WP:N. I've been unable to find any of the other articles mentioned online; although it's clear that the IP derived this list from the author's website, where all these magazines seem to be mentioned. Without access to the article content, I can't say whether they meet the bar or not. I'm inclined to recommend that we write a Kit Berry article; it's right on the cusp, but the local coverage plus the Times equates to just scraping past WP:GNG in my book. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to (as-yet-uncreated) Kit Berry. The Times article is mainly about "Wicca" but has three paragraphs about Kit Berry, saying that she "has signed a six-figure book deal with a mainstream publisher for a fiction series that has already achieved cult status" and that the series is "is set in a mythical gated pagan community in Dorset known as Stonewylde." On that basis there is a good case that she is notable enough for an article, but not for this amount of in-universe detail about her invented world. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to go ahead and start working on a Kit Berry article, using what was at the previous redirect as a basis. I'm going to try to finish it before all of the AfD can be completed so all of them can redirect back to her article instead. I figure that we'll just have to see if the sources are enough to keep the article. I'm not sure if there are, but there's too many to completely ignore at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Redirect to Kit Berry as nominator. I'm not sure that there is enough coverage, but there's enough consensus here that we should recreate the author's article and add the sources stated here. If someone who is familiar with the information from the Times article can add the relevant information from the article to the entry, I'd be much obliged.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)tokygirl79[reply]
Will update. Have been alerted to this dialogue. I know something about the author and can add material to the Kit Berry entry, so have created a user id to do so. Meister-B(talk 09:10, 20 January 2012 (GMT) Meister-B

Comment. Sweet! Now we just need an admin to come by and close this as a redirect to the Kit Berry entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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 and merge to Mac Aodhagáin. I will also add this to Category:Redirects with possibilities in case anyone is able to find something later The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baethgalach Mac Aodhagáin[edit]

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

I cannot find substantial RS coverage (or non-RS coverage, for that matter) of this person under Gnews, Gbooks, and Gscholar. Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep or merge to Mac Aodhagáin. The usual spelling of his name in ancient sources is Baethgalach Mac Aedacan. He was apparently a hereditary brehon in Lower Connacht; calling him a 'professor of law' seems anachronistic. The source given is to a collection of primary texts hosted by the University of Cork. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smerdis. Tx for the explanation. I'm not clear what of the existing content is merger-worthy; it is all unreferenced, though it does have as you point out an EL to the primary source, but it is not clear (to me at least) what of the text that EL supports. (Maybe it is to you?).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the reference doesn't really tell you much. A lot of the material on that website seems to be chronicles and genealogies. (I really wish I knew more Middle Irish. Material on modern Irish is plentiful, and Old Irish is available, but what I really want is the language of the classical poets.) For the interim, I'd say that maybe the best thing to do is to redirect this to Mac Aodhagáin. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable result.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 13 January 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 Tanisha Lynn. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Frye[edit]

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

This character has no significant storylines, background, relevance, or impact on culture. To determine this character's meets of general notability, I tried searching this character's name, including Reed, but no significant coverages of this character were found, including news and books. Also, this character lasted for about two years, and suddenly, the only coverages she had are trivial, including reports of this role's portrayer, Tanisha Lynn. Also, this article consists of only fictional background, which violates "What Wikipedia is not". I could not find receptions of this character from non-primary authentic sources. This article was previously proposed for deletion; even after removal of PROD, there have been no efforts to balance reality and fiction. George Ho (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Actress Tanisha Lynn where her being "known" for this role is already mentioned. Lacks notability for a separate article. While the character is listed in soap-related websites such Soapdom, and Soap Central, the reliable source cover the character only in passing when speaking about the actress who portrayed her: G-News Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~...Good point. I can't find any way to rebute this proposal of yours. However,~~ is this page worth merging or redirecting? Is this page worth the risk of future IP reverts? "Lily Montgomery" was fortunately deleted as a result of AfD; it became resurrected as a violation of deletion result per G4. I think: if this article is deleted, then it is rather worth a wait until this article is re-created under violation of deletion result than worth preserving as a result of redirect or merge. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Always difficult to predict the future. I suggest the redirect because the name is a reasonable serch term for anyone who wishes to know about this character... and in the character lacking notability for a separate article, the actress' article is the better pace to contain some relevent information for our readers. If IPs revert, it can be protected. As for the page history (and again it's the unwritten future), soaps have the habit of bringing even dead characters back to life... and too, even minor soap characters can often become the subject of later study and analysis in books. So if in the future this were able to be far better sourced, the history would allow the article to be returned and improved. Of course, even if deleted... admins can restore page and history if requested and justified. WP:REFUND Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:DELREV, fortunately, if you want to contest the deletion of Lily Montgomery. Anyway, how will this character be the subject of non-primary significant coverages? In accordance with her storylines, the only possibilities are journals of violence and victims of violence, and I'm not too keen to see the academists use this character as part of their own examples. There are bunch of fictional characters who suffer from violence, and this character may have no chance to be researched because... no one is familiar with this character at all, All My Children is dead, and episodes of this show without Erica Kane and her relatives will never be researched in the future because ABC has made no efforts to release them subsequentially... unless I'm biased. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)I changed my mind: this topic and the actress are two separate people, and they may not be the same, in spite of their similar depictions. What are examples of character pages that have been redirected to the actual people? --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What happened at the deleted Lily Montgomery was a different discussion... and User:DGG's comment toward its potential was cogent... there. I am not rehashing that other AFD. In many actor srticles there is sourced discussion of roles for which they have sourcable notability... even if we lack an article on that particular character. The actress and her character are not two diverse and "seperate" topics... they are intertwinned and sourcably inter-related. If a character lacks notability for a separate article, it makes sense to send our readers to a place within Wikipedia where the character may be spoken of and sourced in context to the actor who portrayed the character. In this case, and while the character lacks sourcable notability, the actress does not. As searches for the character find RS discussion of the actresss in context to the character, to me it is sensible to send our readers to the one place where it is logical to have the character mentioned in relationship to the actress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Intertwined and sourcably inter-related? Hmm... ....... True, the actress portrayed this character... ...I'm running out of non-ranting words to say... ...It may be sensible... The idea of yours is too strong for me to battle... Is there evidence that two are the same, aside from the fact that two people appear similar and that this actress portrayed this character? Are there two separate or similar personalities between both of them? David Canary and Adam Chandler are two separate people, despite their similar depictions, unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your example seems to be making my point. The character article mentions the actor and the actor article mentions the character. Had the character article not had enough notability for a separate article, our redirecting readers to the actor article where the character is spoken of in context acts to increase a reader's understanding of the topic... both topics actually. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        All right, if this article is resulted as redirected to the actress's bio, then I must watch either or both of them to wait for IP vandals. You have good points, and it is more reasonable than redirecting to "List of..." --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 6 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) 06:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Actress Tanisha Lynn. Insufficient RS coverage for a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 17 January 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 Ariana Grande. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this song is currently not warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Hearts Up[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

A music article with no chart performance is not applicable for an article. Jared martinez gwapo (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's a single by a successful artist. What more is there to say? ★♛iluvselenagomez1234♛★ 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvselenagomez1234 (talk • contribs)

Don't delete it. Just ask others to edit it. It could bloom into a great article! =) ★♛iluvselenagomez1234♛★ 01:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion of an individual song are quite clear, and this song does not meet those criteria. The obviously biased editor's opinion is a ridiculous !vote Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 1 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ariana Grande per WP:BAND#Recordings. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete in case my comment above was not counted as a formal vote. fails the guideline for notability of songs by a mile, promo single for a manufactured artist, with no coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete It IS notable, I think. I could edit it, give it cites, make it into a good article. So could others! =) ★♛iluvselenagomez1234♛★ 00:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvselenagomez1234 (talk • contribs)

Comment. Please refrain from voting twice. Also, if you're going to edit it and give it references, you should do it now before the AfD is closed. I also want to recommend that you read through WP:RS as to what counts as a reliable source. Links to Amazon.com, press releases, and trivial mentions (articles that don't go into depth about the single, articles that focus predominantly on the singer, etc) cannot be used as reliable sources that show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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) 06:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ariana Grande. No independent notability. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Said artist is on a popular TV series and this is the first single from her first album, which is forthcoming. The prudent thing would be to wait and see how the album does on the charts and reevaluate at a later date. Gavin.s (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. By analogy, I could create a Wikipedia page about myself, since I might (heaven forbid) be famous or infamous one day. Why don't we give that a chance? --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:NSONG. --Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it can be undone if the song turns out to be notable after release. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist, Ariana Grande, as we do with all non-notable songs. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:14, 21 January 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 Rutgers Scarlet Knights. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bells Must Ring[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, as mandated by WP:GNG. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Earlier AFD was procedural keep. GrapedApe (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that this does or will ever meet the WP:GNG or any other of the inclusion guidelines. As a side note, don't understand why this was A9 declined. Mt king ^(edits) 05:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy deletion because it didn't appear to me to fit under the A9 criterion. Being the official fight song of a major university shows some significance. Also, there is no indication of who wrote the song, so I don't know if the second part of the criterion is met or not. When there is reasonable doubt, I err on the side of not applying speedy deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rutgers University. The only decent source I could find was one paragraph in a book on college fight songs.[54] There may well be additional sources offline, but until that is demonstrated (so that a decent article can be written), the best course seems to be to redirect to the University article as a plausible search term.--Kubigula (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If sources can't be found, Merge to Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Patken4 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rutgers University. --Ifnord (talk) 04:05, 21 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Language Schools International[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable third-party sources on this chain of language schools, and so I don't think they pass WP:ORG. Also, as they are language schools and not high schools there doesn't seem to be any reason for us to automatically consider them notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I declined the speedy because I see nothing in the article even remotely promotional (while it lists accomplishments, they're all presented neutrally). But I don't see that it meets any of our notability standards. -- Atama頭 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that the speedy label probably applied; although it doesn't have phone numbers, pricing, and raving reviews, it reads like unambiguous advertising. The article's creator and most prolific editor seems to have a strong interest in Greek, so perhaps this is an innocent endorsement of a helpful resource, but it's not encyclopedic. I have no problems with userfying it for heavy editing, if the original editor has strong feelings about it and can support notability. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:38, 17 January 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 Harmony Korine. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Breakers[edit]

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

(Prod was contested) 2013 movie, proposing deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. Current sources are IMDB, Perez Hilton and two less remarkable hollywood/gossip sites. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harmony Korine until filming starts, per WP:NFF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. WP:NFF clearly applies here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, too early ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:23, 15 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three Is a Magic Number[edit]

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

For policy, just going to quote WP:N here. For reasons grounded in reality, it's a magnet for trivia, and I doubt that any references or notability can be presented. Charles D. Ward (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading the article in its current state, I see what you mean about being a trivia magnet; it does appear that many of the song's cover versions/samples/later uses are mentioned in reliable sources - Blind Melon [55], De La Soul [56], Jack Johnson [57], Jack Black [58], Jeff Buckley [59] and TV3 [60]. Non-trivial coverage for the song/episode in these sources [61][62][63] addresses its origins as well as its impact ("the resulting video worked so well that it attracted the attention of...Michael Eisner, then the head of ABC's children programming"; "It became so popular that subsequent episodes were added..."; "That song helped to change children's television"; it "launched a Saturday morning phenomenon". Overall, I believe enough verifiable material exists on the topic to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 21:44, 4 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) 05:51, 12 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 13. Snotbot t • c » 01:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pilot animation for this highly notable and influential series, it deserves its own article. may be hard to find online references, but there are going to be print references, particularly in animation and educational journals. lots of articles are trivia/vandalism magnets, thats normally only a reason for diligence, not deletion (unless the subject is a barely notable living person and the trivia/vandalism is libelous to them).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 13 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talihina Sky[edit]

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

This film appears to fail all aspects of WP:FILM. Very little content or context in article and no sources. PROD declined by an IP that is likely the article creator. Delete Safiel (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that the current version of the article contains almost nothing informative or useful. However, the film, a documentary about the Kings of Leon, is unquestionably notable, having received multiple reviews in all sorts of media. Examples: Los Angeles Times[64]; Paste Magazine[65]' MTV [66]; Belfast Telegraph[67]; New York Magazine[68]; Fox News [69]; USA Today[70]. Film has been nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video.[71] No doubt a worthwhile article can be written about this film, even if the current article isn't it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos' sources (good work!). Meets WP:GNG as a result. Agree with the need for an overhaul, though. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sources. The nom appears to lack of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinhani[edit]

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

Article makes no claim of significance other than "became famous with their different sound". References are wiki's, blogs, unaccessible, and the last one is primary/trivial. v/r - T P 15:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This claim is very subjective. Esc2003 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what exactly is your rationale for keeping?--v/r - T P 13:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have Turkey's best-known music award Kral... Esc2003 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GNews picks up a lot of hits - all in Turkish but much of it from leading Turkish newspapers (for instance, Hürriyet, Radikal and Sabah). It is of course possible that these are all mentions in passing, but they should at least be checked by a Turkish speaker. PWilkinson (talk) 15:09, 1 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?} 11:29, 4 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) 00:53, 13 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Symposium of Six Perspectives on the Archaic Religious Period[edit]

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

Despite references and other appearances to the contrary, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is written like an essay or college paper, comparing 6 different views on a particular subject. I have thought long and hard about whether it can be rescued, but the basic problem is that such a "symposium" is not an encyclopedic subject, it is original research. ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 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, →Σ τ c. 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main author of the article is rewritting it in the required encyclopedia format. Deleting now will simplify in putting up a new version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jina2 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. It looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Disavian (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Disavian. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of the information would be useful as sources in other articles, but it's blatant WP:SYNTH here. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:48, 13 January 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 Unaccompanied Sonata and Other Stories. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eumenides in the Fourth Floor Lavatory[edit]

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

Not notable. Although the author is notable for other works, the article gives no reason to think that this particular short story is particularly notable, and the article consists only of a plot summary. I put a notability tag on it in March of last year, and in the intervening nine months nobody has put forth any arguments saying that the story is notable (for that matter, nobody made any changes to the article at all). So I propose that the article should be deleted as not notable; if an editor wanted to add content about the story, it could easily be added to the article on the short story collection of which it is a part. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage whatsoever, no sources, no awards for this story specifically, nothing. dkonstantinos (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the the collection whete it was published first. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:52, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moulana Manzoor Ahmed Shah Hijjazi[edit]

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

Zero refs. I've searched his name under various variations, but not found RS substantial support for his notability. Tagged as non-notable, and for absence of refs, for over a year. Created by a one-article-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully Delete . Non-verifiable in English language, and the single-purpose contributor doesn't care. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:56, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khwajakhel[edit]

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

Zero refs. Dearth of RS coverage. And not even any RS-supported content to merge to the tribe it is putatively part of. Tagged for both lack of notability and lack of refs for 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a town of this name and no doubt people of that name came from there, but without sources (there aren't any on Google) it's a goner. If anyone feels like searching in Urdu that would be helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete. nonverifiable as a tribe. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 01:40, 14 January 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 Kit Berry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magus of Stonewylde[edit]

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

Exists, but I can't find sufficient non-trivial, non-local RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a self-published series that the author puts out through a publishing company that she also runs. (For proof, see here:[72]) There are a handful of reviews by non-notable sites and blogs, but nothing that would show notability. That the original editor only uploaded information about the books and the author makes me wonder if this was yet another example of an author coming on to create their own entry on Wikipedia. I'm going to be nominating Stonewylde for deletion shortly, as it is another entry added by this editor and is equally non-notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. The page for the fictional town is now up for deletion as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional Additional. Apparently the books are being released by Orion Publishing, however my assertion of non-notablity for the books still holds as there's no coverage in reliable sources that focuses on the books. If the books do gain this coverage I have no problem with the articles being re-created.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79
Additional X3 There's some talk on the AfD on Stonewylde that the author might meet notability guidelines, so there's the potential that an article will be created on her if a particular source is considered reliable enough. If so, then my vote will change to a redirect to her page. Leaving this comment here for anyone that might come across this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete No reviews or coverage in reliable sources (although plenty of primary source fluff). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted in my comment on the Stonewylde afd, there just isn't enough reliable sourcing here. The reviews I can find are almost entirely blogs - one brief review in the Financial Times doesn't go nearly far enough to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to redirect to Kit Berry. There's been a general agreement on the AfD on the Stonewylde article that there's probably enough sources to warrant creating an article about the author, which has since been recreated. I'd like to change my vote to redirecting to the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to Kit Berry Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 20 January 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 Kit Berry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moondance of Stonewylde[edit]

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

Exists, but I can't find sufficient non-trivial, non-local RS coverage. Zero refs in the article. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a self-published series that the author puts out through a publishing company that she also runs. (For proof, see here:[73]) There are a handful of reviews by non-notable sites and blogs, but nothing that would show notability. That the original editor only uploaded information about the books and the author makes me wonder if this was yet another example of an author coming on to create their own entry on Wikipedia. I'm going to be nominating Stonewylde for deletion shortly, as it is another entry added by this editor and is equally non-notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. The page for the fictional town is now up for deletion as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional Additional. Apparently the books are being released by Orion Publishing, however my assertion of non-notablity for the books still holds as there's no coverage in reliable sources that focuses on the books. If the books do gain this coverage I have no problem with the articles being re-created.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79
Additional X3 There's some talk on the AfD on Stonewylde that the author might meet notability guidelines, so there's the potential that an article will be created on her if a particular source is considered reliable enough. If so, then my vote will change to a redirect to her page. Leaving this comment here for anyone that might come across this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage in reliable sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to redirect to Kit Berry. There's been a general agreement on the AfD on the Stonewylde article that there's probably enough sources to warrant creating an article about the author, which has since been recreated. I'd like to change my vote to redirecting to the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to Kit Berry Hasteur (talk) 18:30, 20 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities that accept UEC qualification[edit]

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

University admission information page which fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 21:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 06:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and also fails to demonstrate why the topic is significant. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List which has no assertion of significance, see WP:LISTCRUFT. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:31, 15 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimri[edit]

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

Contested PROD, concern was "Non-notable list written in an innapropriate tone." Cloudz 679 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant to Garhwali people#Garwali Brahmin Clans with no claim that the Brahmin clans as a group are notable enough for a list or their own article. — Bility (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (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) 01:22, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is pure OR combined with speculation and guesswork, no sources even hinted at. There is essentially nothing that could usefully be merged to Garhwali people#Garwali Brahmin Clans which itself is very lightly sourced, so delete is the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 13 January 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sipaayi (kannada Film)[edit]

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

Fails notability under WP:Notability (films). No reliable sources. Thorncrag 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. This looks like it might have been notable in India, but I can't get Google translate to work so I can check on this. I'm unable to find any sources in English that aren't directs to torrent sites or non-reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (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) 01:19, 5 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:12, 13 January 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.