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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarwl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I listed the first AfD in 2009 before my username was changed to SL93. The first AfD had no comments. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established. Only source is not "third party". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: all I found is several howtos (AFAIK, unsuitable for the purpose of determining notability) and a University of Prague diploma practice report (don't know what is the correct word about describing the obligatory practice needed for graduation) devoting 2 sections about 20 words each (didn't count) to the software and describing its use in building a corporate mail system. Not enough, I believe, though I can't imagine the sources that would estabish notability for the utility of a kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:37, 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 Anniston, Alabama#The Civil War. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Person whose only notability seems to be being killed during the American Civil War and living near where a city was founded 20 years later. The majority of the content already exists in Anniston, Alabama#the Civil War. Mentioned in passing in one source, but I can't find any other sources about him. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Altairisfar (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this person lies in the fact that he was executed with only a summary military trial, while in fact he was innocent. Being virtually the only resident of what was to become Anniston, a town which was formed by a former Union general (usually rederred to as a "carpetbagger"), he was essential to the city's history. Further, this incident was, in essence, the "battle of Anniston" in that it was actually an engagement between Union and Confederate troops, resulting in the deaths, in battle of two Union soldiers after Lee's surrender. An additional published authority describing the incident has been added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwanknitob (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citation was added, showing notability: Anniston Star Sunday, July 4, 1976, p.11E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwanknitob (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability established with new citation. Part of the folklore of Alabama.MadZarkoff (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you have more sources backing that claim up? Secret ^account 03:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I found out about Lloyd on a side trip to New Orleans. He is notable as being one of the foremost historical figures of that area if not the single foremost such figure. He is described not only online but in the brochure of the leading tourism agency of the region -- that citation has been added. If he had been a resident of a large met center in the north, he would have had statues and schools named after him. WP notability should be based on the relative contribution of an individual to his region or area, and with that in mind he should be considered notable.

MadZarkoff (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find anything substantive in a Google scholar/google news, LexisNexis search about this historical figure in either this name or as Charlie Taylor or about a "battle of Anniston" other than an 1898 incident that may be notable for Wikipedia. There was one passing mention on a man named "Lloyd" in a book about the raid (as mentioned above), but who knows if it's the same person, being a common surname. One mention in the local town newspaper 35 years ago isn't enough to satisfy WP:V. Do not merge or redirect neither. Sorry Secret ^account 03:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as already covered in the town article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 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. WilliamH (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Fairytale for You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found nothing that shows this one volume manga passes WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. --Gwern (contribs) 03:22 15 January 2012 (GMT)
  • To what? SL93 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My guess would be that the intention was to suggest a merge to the author Ayumi Shiina.--70.24.206.51 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was debating a redirect to the author Ayumi Shiina, but the title on the page isn't an official English translation of the title (it has never had an official English release), but a fan translation title. Sometimes scanlation titles will be so popularly used that a redirect would be a good idea (such as Perfect Girl Evolution redirecting to The Wallflower manga), but I don't see this being a popular enough title for people to search. I have no problems with anyone that wants to create a redirect, but there really isn't anything here that we can merge. The title isn't so popular or notable outside of the author's other works that the author's page needs a section specifically about it. It's already mentioned on the author's page. In any case, I wasn't able to find any reviews or notable news stories for this title to show that it passes notability guidelines. Even the Japanese wiki's entry was bare of any references.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • A redirect is nothing; if a single person were to search that title, it would be worth making the redirect. And there is plenty to merge - the author page omits the ANN link, the ISBN, the internal breakdown, and the two sentences or so for each story. --Gwern (contribs) 19:26 16 January 2012 (GMT)
• Delete per Tokyogirl79. – Allen4names 06:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with the concerns by Allen4names and Tokyogirl79. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:56, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed 4: King of the Ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can find no info that this is a film that is in production or even in development MarnetteD | Talk 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. However, if anyone can find that this is an actual planned film rather than a "hoped for" film by the article creator I am fine with the article being kept and improved. Also I found this User talk:2011killakam#Proposed deletion of Undisputed 4: King of the Ring after I had posted this nomination - yet I could not find a previous discussion. I have not done one of these in a long time so if this needs to be moved to "2nd nomination" or if I have done anything else incorrectly please fix things as needed with my thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only info available indicates it "may" get released in 2015. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Cavarrone (talk) 21:33, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no reliable sources and no proof that it was released to the public. I found a blog review where a copy was supplied by the director. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A frequently used Wordpress source in the article says that it was released. This does seem like a likely hoax. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not a hoax. What we have here is simply a film by a Canbodian filmmaker that has not received much English-language coverage. I did find RS CANOE, in speaking about a planned film series, stating at the botom of THIS page, "Antonio Graceffo will host a new film series, called "Martial Arts Odyssey," directed by Khmer Australian director, Tim Pek. Tim is well-known for his touching film about the Khmer Rouge genocide, "The Red Sense." While we will need input from Wikipedians with access to Cambodian-language sources, this film is not a hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find anything approaching significant coverage in reliable sources of this film.--Michig (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found this. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent find. The "Official blog" of the CamboFest Cambodian Film Festivals does offer that the film screened there and that director Tim Pek won an award. Shall we acknowledge the possibility of systemic bias and seek input from those Wikipedians able to find and offer Camodian sources? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found this from a martial arts author. I would have rather found these earlier. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, although I think that there is enough now. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, if anyone can find sufficient coverage in any language I would be happy to keep here. I'm not convinced what has been found so far constitutes reliable sources though. --Michig (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Asia Sentinel appears to be reliable. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not totally convinced. I'd like to see some coverage in more clear-cut reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • About page - Three of them have experience with notable newspapers. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Never mind. According to another article by the same author, he is in the film himself. "starring Grand Master San Kim Saen and Antonio Graceffo". I support deletion. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Antonio Graceffo is NOT in this film... but is working with the director on a different film series. My own thought is that it was The Red Sense that caused Graceffo to seek out Tim Pek to direct a new Graceffo project. With Graceffo himself ensuring English coverage of this earlier film by a director with whom he will be working, we still need to get input from Cabodian Wikiepdians. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I read it wrong, but that is still not independent of the subject. I posted on the Cambodia Wikiproject. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure if I think that Cambodian sources can be found. The award was for best local film which gives me more doubts. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it is simple to find Cambodian sources with the Cambodian Google search and I see nothing there as well. There is also Google Translate for a rough translation if need be. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to be fair... the search you used was for Vignean Krohom, the Anglic spelling of the actual Cambodian title. At the bottom of the film's website we see the Cambodia-language spelling [1] in its non-Anglic format. We need Cambodian-reading Wikipedians. At least it did have public screenings and is not a hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film has revieved local interst coverage in "Making sense of atrocities", Oakleigh Monash/Springvale Dandenong Leader, 29 November 2006 and in David, Rebecca (5 March 2008), "Tim's tale from heart", Oakleigh Monash/Springvale Dandenong Leader

Phnom Penh Post has multiple mentions. Barton, Cat (23 August 2007), "Cambodia film makers aim to rebuild tattered image", Phnom Penh Post has a paragraph on the film in a long article about Cambodian cinema. Rahn, Cornelius (12 January 2009), "TV show parodies Phnom Penh life", Phnom Penh Post when discussing "CamboFest awards The Golden Buffalo 2008, Cambodia’s small-scale equivalent of the Academy Awards" says "Among the Cambodian contributions, The Red Sense by Tim Pek swayed the jury with its portrayal of a woman’s quest to find her father’s killer. " "Siem Reap Scene...", Phnom Penh Post, 15 January 2009 says on the subject of CamboFest film and video festival: "The Post published some of the major festival Golden Buffalo award winners on Monday, and here is the full list:" ... "Local showcase winner. The Red Sense, directed by Tim Pek [Cambodia/Australia]" duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, happy to change my view if the Cambodian Wikiproject can provide some Khmer-language sources, but otherwise this looks to be a rather unremarkable independent film. Getting a feature film made is a fantastic achievement of course, but it doesn't automatically mean notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 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, Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note I relisted this specifically because of the new sources found by Duffbeerforme--I'd like to see comments on whether editors think that those are sufficient to meet WP:FILM or WP:GNG

• Keep per sources found and offered. We have the admitted difficulties in finding sources that deal with Khmer-language Cambodian films, and I'm impressed by User:Duffbeerforme finding what he did. As sources are available even if not in the article, I dropped him a note suggesting he add them to the article. Even if not worldwide, if we have notability to Cambodia, we have notability enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with kudos to Duffbeerforme for his finds. Obviously, it would help if those sources were added to the article, but they are enough to pass the GNG and hence this AfD. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do any of the sources identified above constitute significant coverage? From the descriptions above, it doesn't sound like they do.--Michig (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria one of NFILM: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." I can only guess, but the provided sources and noted award certainly make it seem as though this film was widely distributed and critiqued ("Tim's tale from heart"). Granted, I'm AGF'ing a lot here, but the notability reqs for movies aren't terribly high. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To User:Michig: If the sources offered by User:Duffbeerforme share information about the film in a more-than-trivial fashion, even if the film is not always the main focus of the sources, then we have a meeting of WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. We do not expect nor demand that something notable to Australia and Cambodia would have world-wide coverage.

    To User:Nolelover: Good points... the "criteria" are not mandated requirements. They only describe circumstances for older films that if existing could encourage a search for more-than-trivial sources. The "criteria" do not have to exist in order for sources to exist. That we have coverage in Australia and Cambodia for a film screened in Australia and Cambodida is expected and logical. To qualify as applicable, reviews for a film screened in Australia dnd Cambodia do not have to be from "United-States-known" or "internationally-known" journalists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "If the sources offered by User:Duffbeerforme share information about the film in a more-than-trivial fashion" - that's what I'm trying to establish. Many of them clearly do not. If anyone can confirm that some of them do, then we have justification for keeping.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is why I added this to the Cambodia delsort below. :) Input from Khmer language-reading Wikipedians would be helpful... as would Duffbeerforme offering translations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: This is only NOW in the Cambodia delsort. Just as with the last relisting, Duffbeerforme offered numerous sources and input from Khmer language would be of great value.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep real film, shot in Australian and Cambodia, and shown at a film festival. There are a number of aritcles written about it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:12, 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 as non-notable trope. While it might be mentioned within the article on the film critic who coined the phrase, the term itself does not have the notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chubby? Hmmm … (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable neologism that appears to be the pet catchphrase of a single film critic (who provides the sole reference). Has received little attention from anyone else so the phrase "popularized" seems a wild exaggeration.
This type of entry is not suitable for Wikipedia although our friends on that OTHER Wiki might be more interested. Failing that, Urban Dictionary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. I can't find third-party refs on Google News or Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable phrase. LadyofShalott 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Stubbleboy 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did find things to show that this is being used, but not anything that could show that it's a notable trope.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. I'm unable to find reliable sources which provide coverage about the term, rather than merely use it.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as well. SarahStierch (talk) 19:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Byrd Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable elementary school. PROD contested by article creator. Safiel (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to school district, Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools#Elementary schools. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote now that the article has been rewritten. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect per gene93k and long established convetion. RadioFan (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep This is a very different article now and easily meets WP:BIO. As I'm the last participant in this AFD to change my !vote to keep, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and close this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per standard procedure as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures for non notable primary schools, and Category:Redirects from school articles. Blank and redirect to Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools where it is already mentioned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changing my vote per Cinamuse below) as a biography about a notable person. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect' please remember to add the ((R from school)) template to the redirect page. It populates an important category. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've taken the alternative route to address issues with this article through normal editing. While the elementary school does not meet notability guidelines, notability for Clara Byrd Baker (the namesake) is met through the general notability guidelines. Accordingly, I have done a major revamp to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have changed my vote above to 'keep'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 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?} 13:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bladet Tromsø (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An editor on the IRC channel was expressing concern that this article didn't meet the notability guidelines, and I share his concern. AfD tiem. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. dkonstantinos (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Editor in question here; quoting from what I said on the talk page: "The major claim to notability seems entirely wrapped up in the Lindberg case, which already has a writeup (and a stronger writeup) at Odd F. Lindberg. There seems no secondary coverage of Bladet Tromsø specifically, which is required by my reading of WP:ORG. If that is so, then it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete and direct editing work to the other page." Maybe set up a redirect to Odd F. Lindberg#Sealing report in Bladet Tromsø? dkonstantinos (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For me, this is no doubt that this is an article that should be kept. I know nothing about the Lindberg case, but in my eyes it is notable without it. "Second" paper in Tromsø, after Nordlys, so you'll be busy deleting newspapers in Norway if this one isn't notable. Just because you can't find any English-language sources does not mean that the subject isn't notable. Even though this is clear to me, I'll do some research and read some notability guidelines before making up my mind. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your context as an actual Norwegian makes you sure it's notable and you can pull in some Norwegian-language sources, by all means please do. I'd obviously rather see it tricked out with sources than deleted. dkonstantinos (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as an "actual Norwegian"...), added encyclopedic source. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep included in Store Norske Leksikon, a general-purpose paper encyclopedia, thus meets the gold standard for inclusion. And definitively notable (as a "actual Norwegian"). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How can a 114-year-old newspaper with a circulation of 110,000 not be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:58, 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. Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Somerset Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no notability for this church. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence (or even claim) of notability. LadyofShalott 02:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing which remotely satisfies WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore as a redirect on request  I agree that the topic is not wp:notable, what I don't see is how the previous !votes get from a "not notable" to a "delete" without any intervening steps.  In a community of 12,000, a church that seats 300 casts a shadow.  Google maps even shows that there is a road called E. Somerset Church Rd. by the church.  This link confirms that the church is associated with the American Baptist Association.  The Somerset, KY article curiously mentions a former "Eastern Baptist Seminary", but other sources call it "Eastern Baptist Institute".  Either way, the encyclopedia is missing an article.  And what is the connection of the former seminary to this church?  I think East Somerset Baptist Church should be merged, possibly to Somerset, KY, but without a champion to take on this task, I think that the article needs to be removed from mainspace until a target is ready to receive the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Somerset, KY, perhaps. I consider this a good solution for lcoal facilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Non notable organisation, no references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 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 deleted by Fastily as "(G2: Test page)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Brokerage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Eaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article gives no reliable sources, and my searches have failed to produce any significant coverage in any reliable sources. All the evidence suggests she was a minor actress who mainly played fairly minor roles. (Note: PROD was removed with no explanation at all.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She played the lead in a B movie and had reasonably substantial roles in several more prestigious productions. She likely was part of the original cast of two Broadway plays (curse you IBDb for not providing enough info to confirm it is the same person). It also appears she was a painter of some note: the National Museum of Women in the Arts has a bare database listing for an artist with the same name (Marjorie Lee Eaton) and lifespan, while the Denver Post and AskART have more substantial information (the latter also with the same birth and death years and California connection). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and my hat is off to User:Clarityfiend. Apart from theater and the arts, this actress had a long and persistant career in film and television. And while many of her character roles were small, enough were significant enough for her to meet WP:ENT. Project and will benefit from article cleanup and sourcing, but addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with reasoning along the lines of Schmidt's. Abundant citations findable through Google Books make her art background and movie career verifiable, and her roles are significant enough to meet the bar for notability. User:Clarityfiend does good work. --Lockley (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely, enough material here to satisfy need for an article.

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3011 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is absolutely nothing special or noteworthy about this number. It does not come within a million miles of satisfying any of the notability guidelines, including the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). (Note: PROD was removed by an anonymous (IP) editor, who gave no reason at all.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sign of this meeting the number notability criteria. I previously proposed merging this to 3000_(number), but I no longer see anything worth merging. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). I've saved some unlikely-looking number articles in the past by finding enough interesting properties about them, but of the 220 hits for 3011 in OEIS, I didn't find a single one that both seemed to me to be an interesting property (like being a prime number) and that had 3011 early enough in the sequence to be a notable example of one of its numbers. The closest was OEIS:A114351 (primes of the form 3x^3+x+1) which does have 3011 early in the sequence but is not notable enough to have a name or a Wikipedia article. I agree with Hairhorn that it isn't even good enough for a redirect to 3000 (number). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's just a number. There are an infinite number of similar numbers. This kind of article encourages articles like "1625461547152476215376152873652138765128367598790879879087098709870983 is the natural number following 1625461547152476215376152873652138765128367598790879879087098709870982 and preceding 1625461547152476215376152873652138765128367598790879879087098709870984," which are in no way encyclopedic. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – found nothing of interest, apart from a Miss Santa set. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if there were anything interesting about it, it could redirect to 3000 (number), but I don't see anything even worth that, unless we wanted to have every whole number between 3000 and 3999 without their own articles as redirects... but why do that? LadyofShalott 04:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as trivia. (An aside: I'm not a math guy, but there would logically be an infinite number of prime numbers, would there not?) Carrite (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, there are infinite prime numbers (see Euclid's theorem), which further justifies the non-notability of 3011. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete. There's nothing particularly notable about this number. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (numbers). The overwhelming consensus is that it should be deleted, and I think the snowball clause should take effect here. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:32, 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?} 13:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the champion ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MOVIE Ifnord (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment I an not at all surprised that a English title Find sources for this Vietnamese film offers poor search results as it was never released under that English name... only the Vietnamese... but I am not so certain that this one fails WP:NF... as there do appear to be a number of Vietnamese language sources waiting to be translated.[2] For example, an article in Vietnamese newspaper Hà Nội Mới [3] when google-translated, tells us the 5-minute film is "very appealing", and as toward prodction background tells us "The filmmaker's idea was this film ever since Vietnam was chosen to host the SEA Games 22". And too, we have WP:CSB informing that we understand and adjust for the unfortunate Anglo-centric bias on en.Wikipedia. We do not expect world-wide acclaim or recognition for a Vietnamese film, and if found notable to Vietnam, that is good enough for us. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As noticed by Schmidt the film has received not trivial coverage by reliable Vietnamese media, like vietbao, vnexpress and hanoimoi. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has enough coverage in Vietnamese media.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user. Reason given on talk page is: "Notability of this fictional character is not established due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject." I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Using the Google News link above Salon has an article on how the character's introduction has affected the long-running show. There's also a Seattle PI article and a few others I'm not going to take the time to examine. These sources should clearly be added to the article to give real-world context, which clearly exists. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Jclemens. But I hope they get rid of the character. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:03, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six-card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod and redirect. Unremarkable game variant. No indications of notability, no references. Google search on "six-card" "James M. Franks" (the alleged creator of this poker variant) shows no results other than this page. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. --Ifnord (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP, and WP:NOTGUIDE. This is too new a phrase for inclusion here. It has not caught on as a popular card game. We are not supposed to list every variant of card games anyway. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unreferenced account of a poker variation played in Bloomington, Indiana. I am sorry, but unverified rumors that it may have also been played in Peoria do not constitute a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple of the Sacred Lady Crayon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This had already been deprodded and despeedied, and so we go to Afd. While a fascinating bit of local music culture and history, my Google web, news and book searchs for "Temple of the Sacred Lady Crayon" doesn't yield anything that would suggest notability according to any reliable sources, unfortunately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article about a house which doesn't exist anymore. Some musicians lived there. That's it. Notability not established, and I can't find any sources that might help. Sorry. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I also was unable to find any significant reliable source coverage of this building where musicians lived. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. Well I don't know what else to do at this point. Maybe I should include the famous people that stayed there over the years. It's interesting that something that at the time was very important in both Saskatoon and the Western Canadian punk and art scene, and was well known in those circles can have little record of years later.--Clarknikolai (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well hopefully, one day someone will write a book about the scene, or even some magazine articles, then we will have some sources on which to base a wikipedia article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even at that, as I mentioned on your Talk page, Clark, imo it's unlikely that this could ever amount to more than a stub article, on its own. I would strongly encourage you to add such content to Music of Saskatchewan#Saskatoon, if you can find reliable sources. Then you or someone could split the article off at some future date, if warranted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berat Tosun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aslo nomminating the following article for deletion for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atabey Çiçek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect- To Gençlerbirliği S.K., as valid search terms. Dru of Id (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:39, 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.  Sandstein  10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Club of the Most Beautiful Bays of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this exists, it suffers from a dearth of substantial rs coverage. Tagged for lack of notability since May. Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 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, Rcsprinter (whisper) 17:30, 7 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?} 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Only source is official site. Hits seem like promotional sites. The prose is v difficult to follow. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was translated from the French version fr:Club des plus belles baies du monde, probably by machine translation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I thought.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:38, 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 no consensus. The discussion hinges on two sources: DistroWatch and FSF. It appears from the discussion that DistroWatch alone is not enough to establish notability due to the relative ease with which entries are added (compared to, say, getting coverage in a major newspaper). The FSF source is more debatable. Some argue that FSF is not independent because of their mutual acknowledgment, while others maintain that the FSF's listing of Parabola is to be seen as recognizing an accomplishment as opposed to associating itself with the distro. According to WP:GNG, being independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." The footnote reads "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It really depends on your interpretation of "strong connection to them," and as closer, I have to say that both are equally valid arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Parabola GNU/Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only WP:RS is the FSF, which is not independent in this case, it promotes Parabola only because Parabola complies with FSF's guidelines. Articles require multiple reliable sources, and a single questionable one is not sufficient. All the other references are either blogs or from the distro's website itself. SudoGhost 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It has a complete profile on DistroWatch, which is an independent reliable source and which is cited in the article. This alone should be sufficient to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those entries on DistroWatch are user submitted; all one has to do to have an entry on DistroWatch is to have an existing Linux distro, this is not enough to establish notability. - SudoGhost 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not correct. Anyone can submit a request that distro be included on DistroWatch, but each submission is vetted by the DistroWatch staff carefully against their inclusion criteria. The vast majority of distros submitted do not get written up as profiles by their staff (the entries are professionally created by a staff under editorial control, they are not user written like on a wiki). The process of submitting a distro is explained here. Distros that do not make their criteria are left on a waiting list found here. Since there are thousands of Linux distros and DistroWatch only lists the few hundred top ones they are very discriminant and so this is nothing like a "phone book" listing where everyone gets included. Distrowatch meets all the requirements for a reliable source: it is an independent publication with professional editorial oversight and is very discriminating as to what they include. I submit that being profiled on DistroWatch establishes notability to the extant required by WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, and I had linked that process above, and had read it. Nothing in the process describes editorial oversight, only a waiting period to ensure that the distro sticks around, there is no requirement that it is notable in any way. In fact, the link provided details that one can buy an immediate listing (All you need to do is to buy an advertising banner and your distro will be listed straight away.) That one can buy this "professional editorial oversight" makes it not very discriminating, and makes it completely useless as a reliable source to use for establishing the notability of a distro, as one can simply buy their entry on the site. - SudoGhost 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we will have to leave it to the closing admin to adjudicate the reliable source value of DistroWatch then. Being the only cited (proposed) RS this AFD pretty much hangs on that decision. In the meantime I will see if I can locate any other reliable sources on this distro and add them. If I am able to do so I will make a note here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished a pretty extensive search for refs and basically found nothing else in the way of sources worth mentioning. This tends to lend credence to my earlier statement that the notability of this distro hangs on DistroWatch. If the closing admin finds that listing confers notability then it can stay otherwise it will be deleted, unless a new ref turns up in the next week. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I would add (to previous Ahunt's statements) that Parabola is also one of 9 distributions "blessed" by FSF. Not an indiscriminate list. The ref: Smith, Brett (2011-05-20). "Parabola GNU/Linux joins the FSF list of free distributions". FSF. Retrieved 2012-01-14. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the FSF is generally a reliable source, but is not an independent reliable source in this instance. The only reason the FSF commented on it is because it meets FSF's strict guidelines, and worked with the FSF to ensure that compliance. Because of that, and only because of that, is the FSF promoting it. That no reliable sources have commented on this despite this relationship with the FSF is somewhat telling as to the lack of notability. - SudoGhost 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, effectively. FSF is independent towards all the Linux Distributions (except for UTUTO, which was developed by FSF-LA people, AFAIK). The fact is that FSF is acting in line with its stated goals doesn't demote its independence in the sense of WP:GNG. Actually, such reasoning renders all the sources unreliable, as they publish the information in their scope of interest. Eg., a newspaper has a goal to earn by informing its readers, and thus it is interested in reporting the news events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper is impartial in its reporting, and would report on an election despite who won, for example. The FSF only mentions Parabola because of its compliance with their guidelines, and have a conflict of interest in promoting this distro. Wikipedia:Third-party sources says it well: "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." The FSF has a clear interest in promoting an FSF-compliant distro. Wikipedia articles require multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article has none. - SudoGhost 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be applicable if we discussed the review by FSF. It's not a promotion, just a report. As far as the fact of endorsement is one of the reasons of notability, FSF saying it "blesses" a distribution is clearly a valid source of information about this fact. Keep in mind, that we don't discuss the FSF's position regarding the notability of Parabola, but instead the fact of FSF's "blesssing" as a factor of notability. BTW, the inclusion criterion 4 of WP:NSOFT also applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that FSF saying it "blesses" a distribution is clearly a valid source of information about this fact, but this is an issue of WP:N, not WP:V. Notability is established by independent reliable sources. The FSF is not independent in regards to (one of a very, very few) FSF-complaint distros. If a newspaper (or any other WP:RS) were to write about this, that would be an independent reliable source. From reading WP:Independent sources, the FSF is in no way an independent source in regards to Parabola GNU/Linux. - SudoGhost 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow you still fail to see my point. The notability follows not from the fact that FSF writes about Parabola (which would be prone to independence issue see here), but from the FSF "blessed" Parabola. This makes Parabola stand out from the total number of distribution. And you didn't address my reference to WP:NSOFT, which specifically addresses notability of software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow how being "blessed" makes the FSF's conflict of interest in promoting a FSF-compliant distro exempt from the independence requirement of WP:GNG. As for WP:NSOFT, this does not apply for a number of reasons. Being one of several distros that use selective software that meets a certain group's agenda does not qualify as "technical significance", especially because no independent reliable sources have commented on this significance, if this selectivity (which is not unique to this distro) does indeed equate to a technical significance. The bottom line is that the FSF is not an independent source in regards to this article's subject. When reading the first paragraph of the summary of this essay, and also this essay (specifically this), the FSF cannot be said to be independent of the Parabola GNU/Linux article.

However, even if we were to assume that the FSF had no connection to Parabola GNU/Linux, had no vested interest in promoting one of the few distros that are FSF-compliant and in complete accordance with their strict guidelines on software, and that the FSF had nothing to gain by promoting a distro that adhered to and promoted their goals, the fact remains that articles need multiple reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject, and even if the FSF source fulfilled that, it is still the only one that would. - SudoGhost 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I've taken your word for no news coverage of the event. In fact there is a news overage: [4], [5], [6] and some more out there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief news stubs paraphrasing a FSF press release don't satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. For example, this is more about List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation, than Parabola GNU/Linux, and would certainly satisfy WP:V for the purposes of including Parabola GNU/Linux in that article, but does nothing for establishing the notability of Parabola GNU/Linux in its own right. The other is much the same story, albeit in much fewer words. The third appears to be a user-submitted entry, falling under WP:SPS. - SudoGhost 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The comments about Distrowatch above appear to show that it is not a reliable source in our sense, and endorsement by FSF as meeting their requirements is just that, not evidence that anyone uses or cares about it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. Distrowatch does not appear to be any kind of reliable source, as their site says anyone can buy an article there. The FSF post, to draw a parallel to business notability, seems to just be a single award by an industry group. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The DistroWatch entry is user submitted. I don't see how the website approving it to be posted shows notability. That is just like submitting a comment on an article to a reliable source and having the reliable source approve the comment. FSF is not an independent source. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Parabola is a free GNU/Linux distribution and also one of 9 distributions "blessed" by FSF. Not an indiscriminate list., and it is very important for the free community and FSF, and it is an alternative with only free software from ArchLinux. This distro is on Distrowatch and it deserves keep in wikipedia. --Emulatorman (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We appreciate that as the originator of this article you would naturally feel that it is important. However, articles are retained for notability. The general guideline is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For software there are other possible criteria:

• The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement.
• The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
• The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
• It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from an reliable source, and/or assert notability.

If you have reliable sources that establish any of these, please bring them forward. The discussion above seems to have established that Distrowatch is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it, and that the FSF endorsement is not evidence of notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP If this is true, then how does the current Wikipedia article on Gentoo_Linux meet these guidelines. It has many cites but 99% are from gentoo.org. The one truly independent cite is a definition of the Gentoo penguin.
  • Parabola GNU/Linux is a real Linux distro that exists
  • The article is factual, not a "sales/marketing" bromide
  • FSF is an independent organization, and is a reliable source on the topic of Free Software
  • Distrowatch is an industry standard source for news about Linux
  • As far as I can tell these guidelines are being applied selectively given the number of Linux articles on Wikipedia not being held to the scrutiny of this article.

--Charlesroth (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a moment that WP:OTHERSTUFF shouldn't be used as an argument for a deletion discussion, Gentoo has reliable sources that can establish the notability. I found these after a quick search online, and stronger sources could easily be found.[7][8][9] However, this WP:AFD isn't discussing Gentoo, and multiple editors have attempted to find any reliable sources to establish the notability of this subject, myself included. None could be found. Please see the discussion above for why Distrowatch is not a reliable source for establishing the notability, and why the promotion by the FSF is not an independent source. "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." The FSF cannot honestly be said to fulfill this definition, given its vested interest in this distro, and only mentions it because the distro meets the requirements and furthers the aims and goals of the FSF. This is not independent. - SudoGhost 03:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a comment to the off-wiki readers that are commenting about this,[10][11][12][13] please be aware that there is no "bias" in this deletion discussion on my part. I had originally attempted to gather references in order to create the article a few months ago, but unfortunately Parabola GNU/Linux does not yet meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. This is not to say that it never will, but it currently does not. This is not an "attack" on Parabola GNU/Linux, or anything like that. Parabola GNU/Linux is a project, that you care about and believe in. It has strict rules on what does and does not belong (only free software), a worthy goal that keeps Parabola GNU/Linux strong, and keeps it what it is. This is a thing to be proud of. By that same token, Wikipedia is a project, that I care about and believe in. Its rules for what does and does not belong are not as strict, but they exist for a reason. Not to attack or "get rid of stuff you care about", please don't mistake it for that, and that is not, and never will be, the intention. - SudoGhost 04:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that. I read though it and I have to add that the comments there are very misguided. This AFD discussion is not a question of being deletionist or inclusionist or exercising some bias against Linux-Libre projects, this is strictly to determine whether this article meets WP:N for inclusion or not. The other thing I would add is that complaints and posting vague conspiracy theories on forums doesn't influence this debate or Wikipedia policy. If people cared about what articles are on Wikipedia then they would participate here in making well-formed logical and persuasive augments and not suddenly join Wikipedia to make personal attacks, as above (which I will remove). They would also participate in forming Wikipedia's notability policy instead of making conspiracy theory noises in obscure forums. As per the above discussion I have tried to show that this article meets notability requirements in having been written up in independent third party references, such as tech media reviews, but it hasn't. There is its entry on DistroWatch and nothing else to date. This brings up two problems: 1. If the subject of this article is so important then why hasn't any kind of press reported on it? and 2. How can we create and maintain an encyclopedia article when the only sources really available are the article subject's own project pages all about itself? Encyclopedia articles require more than "it is great, use it" sources, they need to be balanced and include criticism and review. Without independent references available we can't add any criticism and that is what results in biased articles. Articles on Windows have tons of very pointed criticism, because a lot has been published, resulting in fairly balanced encyclopedia articles. The notability requirements are Wikipedia policies for a reason, without them we would get promotional style articles with no criticism of the subject and the smaller and more obscure the subject, the less media coverage would be available and therefore the less balanced the article. If the subject of this article is really so important to so many people why has there been not one single review published? - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't currently meet WP:GNG. We need at least two in-depth reviews in independent third-party reliable sources, and we don't have them. Yworo (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Parabola GNU/Linux deserves to keep in wikipedia because is a real GNU/Linux distro that respects FSF principles and does not confuses users with pseudo free licenses. It's a serious project that defends the freedom and it has good references. e.g: Distrowatch , FSF , and Gato por Libre article, published on Alexandre Oliva Blog and Espirito Livre magazine nº25 --Coadde (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Coadde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The distrowatch and FSF references have been discussed above; I'm not convinved they demonstrate notability. As for other two, the first only appears to mention the distro, if at all, in passing (I'm using an online translator so forgive me if this is wrong.) The second, PDF source again only seems (again, I don't read the language so I may be wrong) to be mentioning the distro in passing while discussing an event. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Parabola is one of a very small number of GNU/Linux distributions (of fully working currently installable distributions, I believe one of two) that take full advantage of the CPU in the Yeeloong computer. It parent distribution, Arch GNU/Linux, has support but for a slower ABI. As of Mon Jan 16 2012, it has "parabola gnu/linux" has 148,000 google hits not hosted by the parabola project ("parabola gnu/linux" -site:parabolagnulinux.org). It's also important to the free software movement, being listed as one of the FSF/GNU project's recommended Free GNU/Linux distributions at http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html - together Parabola and the Yeeloong represent the most open mobile general purpose computing platform currently available. -- Djbclark (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Google hits are not an indication of the notability (or lack of notability) of any given topic. Please see WP:GHITS. - SudoGhost 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Parabola GNU/Linux is an alternative free distribution to Arch Linux so is not right discriminate it. Personally, the ArchLinux's people have a diferent ethics ideology and the Parabola's people have a free ethics ideology and there are respect them, My question is: Why the people respect ArchLinux and not Parabola?. This article go to specially addressed to Opensource's people and it musts be reflect for the people about the issue. --Jorginho 2 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Jorginho 2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is not an issue of not respecting ideologies, but of the subject's lack of notability (per Wikipedia's definition). - SudoGhost 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty funny that someone tagged as spa the person who started his/her participation in the AfD discussion by hitting Discuss this page red link. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Hi, I'm surprised this article was proposed for deletion. Not only is it officially recognized by the FSF, it is also one of the few distros fully functional on open standards hardware such as the Yeeolong. Composition and style could be improved a little, but that can easily be done. --Arhuma (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Arhuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you please remove the tag? My account is not an WP:SPATG. I've been contributing as an IP since 2005, and joined in 2009.--Arhuma (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First there is no way to prove that that is the case and second, as the tag says it is what that particular account has been used for that the tag draws attention to. Your account has made two edits, both to this AFD in the last two days. You should note that SPA accounts are not ignored by admins in closing an AFD, but that factor is taken into account in the closing decision. It seems quite apparent that someone interested in the subject of this article has organized a concerted off-Wikipedia campaign to save this article from deletion, however the large number of people who have suddenly opened accounts on Wikipedia to make wild emotional arguments here about why their favourite distro should have a Wikipedia article, are not going to convince the closing admin, because this debate will be determined not by emotional pleas, but by the presence of reliable third party references on the subject, of which so far there are virtually none. As I have said several times here that is the only issue that matters, not SPA tags. I added the DistroWatch article as a ref to the article and have argued above for keeping the article on the sole basis of that ref, but I will have to wait and see how the closing admin adjudicates on the validity of DistroWatch as a ref to establish notability. I have also carried out extensive searches for refs for this article and have found none, in English anyway. If you are dedicated to keeping this article then you should be presenting all the third-party references here (in any language) as those will be the only factor that will matter in this debate's outcome. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to prove it is to look for my account in .es and .it. As per the IP contributions, you are right, those cannot be proved. I can't tell whether a campaign has been put up, but one thing is for sure: my account was not opened for the sole purpose of expressing my opinion here, that's why I'd appreciate the removal of the tag, I understand it was a mistake.

As you brought up the subject of emotional pleas, I would like to point out that it does not apply in my case and in fact you cannot see it in any of my contributions. In this particular case, that's because although I am a supporter of freedom in the technology and knowledge areas, I strongly believe that the efforts put in the development of distros could be used much more efficiently in the development or improvement of the many free applications that are still needed. However, I still think distributions should have a place in Wikipedia in order to improve it, specially when well supported by a committed group of people, as it seems to be the case here.

Regarding third party references, I don't think we can safely say that there are virtually none. The DistroWatch that you mentioned is one, FSF is another one.--Arhuma (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those refs seem to have been pretty much discounted as not independent third party refs, DistroWatch, because they sell entries to anyone with $200 and FSF, because they are not independent of the subject. We shall see what the closing admin has to say on those proposed refs, as he or she will have the last word. Otherwise, yes your arguments have been entirely emotional, saying "I am a supporter of freedom in the technology and knowledge areas" and therefore this article should stay is not an argument based on Wikipedia policy, but an emotional appeal and perhaps also an implied statement that anyone who disagrees that this article should be kept therefore does not support those aims, which is not the case. Nothing you have added to this discussion is going to result in this article being retained, only showing that there are independent third party refs will do that. You will note too that my comment was to keep this article, not delete it, but I have had to hang that entirely on DistroWatch, since no one in the tech press, or any other press for that matter, seems to taken any notice of this distro or written a word on it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is being quoted is not an emotional statement, it is fact. And it is not an argument to back up my position on this issue. Rather, it is a premise to the following statement, which was omitted from the quote. The reason it was necessary to make things clear is that there was a reference to accounts being opened for the sake of this issue, which in my case is false. My account has mistakenly been tagged as SPA and I hope it will be fixed.--Arhuma (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • About everyone coming here: There was no off-site campaign to save *this* article from deletion, but the article on Spanish Wikipedia (which was AfD, but decided Keep). The original version of this article is the Spanish article ran through Google Translate. The attention this article is receiving is either momentum from the Spanish article, or because of an email about changing Parabola's path to make our issues with the article entirely false (such as switching kernels so that calling it a "Linux distribution" is entirely false). ~ LukeShu (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that is being debated here is not whether the subject of this article is recognized by the FSF, or any other organization, and not whether its composition or style is polished or not. Articles get included in Wikipedia strictly based on the presence of significant write-ups on the subject in independent third party references, which on Wikipedia is called notability. So the arguments you have presented here will not cause this article to be retained, finding significant independent third parties references is the only thing that will. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that recognition by FSF is of key importance to determine notability in this case. That is because the central point of the article is that the distro is 100% free software, so asking for other sources is unreal, FSF is the authoritative source that can attest that claim, I can hardly think of any others. And the fact that it's 100% libre and capable of running on open standards hardware is also the key technical significance of the distro as per WP:NSOFT. Deleting this article is to deprive readers of useful information.

The reason why I mentioned composition and style is because that is the only issue I can see, certainly not a basis for deletion.--Arhuma (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this AfD, it already explains why the FSF is not an independent, reliable source for establishing the notability of this article's subject. WP:NSOFT doesn't apply simply due to selective use of software, especially if no independent, reliable sources make the argument that this is technically significant. This is also not the only distro that makes this same selective use of software, so WP:NSOFT does not apply. Notability must be established from independent, third-party reliable sources. - SudoGhost 12:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, WP:NSOFT doesn't apply because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? This is a novel approach at AfD discussions... May be it's time to move your user page to mainspace? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that WP:NSOFT applies to this situation, but that this article doesn't meet any of the criteria specified there, once again because it lackes reliable third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the article passes the criteria of WP:NSOFT is another matter. Whether or not a position can be backed up by essay is also a question for discussion, probably. But saying that the essay doesn't apply because there are other distributions is... weird. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not simply that there are other distributions, it is the fact that there are other distributions that already adhere to this Linux-libre software guideline, which makes a claim of technical significance because of this fact highly questionable in yet another FSF-adherent distro. - SudoGhost 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sense in your implication of idea that only one item can be technically significant on one criterion. Technical significance is a substantial deviation from the common principles. Given the ratio of guideline compatible and incompatible distributions I would say this deviation is indeed substantial. Regarding the nature of the guideline I would consider this deviation to be of technical nature. Where am I wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been the first distro to do so, and reliable sources had commented on this fact, this would be true. But it is the 9th (from my understanding) distro to do so. The ratio of compatible v. incompatible distros isn't an indication of technical significance. However, I don't think it's productive to argue what is technically significant or not, given that WP:NSOFT specifically requires that reliable sources comment on this technical significance, not Wikipedia editors. No such sources have been presented, and the FSF is certainly not an independent source on determining the technical significance of something on the merit that it is complaint with FSF's guidelines. - SudoGhost 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSF is the most reliable source on compliance with its own guidelines. Period. If the FSF was a foundation with little to no awareness, it would require supporting sources to establish the importance of the statement, but in this case clearly the FSF's statement is enough. And again I see no sense in your implication that only one item can be technically significant on one criterion. Saying that the one most significant is the first one doesn't clarify the reason to exclude the other 8 from a list, given that the total number is 4000+ (as reported by Distrowatch). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many reliable sources can be provided that say that Parabola GNU/Linux is technically or historically significant? The FSF source certainly doesn't say this, only that it is compliant with their guidelines. To infer that this therefore equates to a technical significance is original research, unless a reliable source can verify this claim. - SudoGhost 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to claim historical significance, while the compliance with FSF's guideline is a kind of technical significance. And there is the only possible reliable source claiming that – FSF. Apart of FSF there can't be any reliable sources about FSF's opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline compliance being a technical significance in this instance would certainly need to be reliably sourced by an independent source. If the FSF claimed that Parabola GNU/Linux is technically significant (which it doesn't) on the basis that it meets the FSF's criteria, this would in no way be an independent source. To be an independent source, X cannot claim that Y is significant only because it follows X's rules, this would require the reliable source Z to comment on it. - SudoGhost 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous. We don't require sources to explicitly state that something is notable. We conclude notability from sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For most notability criteria, absolutely. WP:NSOFT is more specific than that, however, requiring that it is "recognized as having historical or technical significance." - SudoGhost 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you linked is concerning AfD arguments based on the existence (or not) of Wikipedia articles. This has nothing to do with what I commented on. WP:NSOFT requires that it is technically or historically significant in some way, and when it is simply the latest in a group of distros that also use these same selective software guidelines, there is nothing significant about it. It meets WP:NSOFT when "It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources." Nowhere does this article meet this criteria. This simply states that it "follows the Free System Distribution Guidelines". Following a guideline does not equate to a technical significance, especially if there are no reliable, third-party sources that recognize this. Nearly every distro does something different than the others in some way, this does not by default equate to a technical significance. - SudoGhost 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have already discussed the reliability and independence of FSF and Parabola above. And still I see no proof that people from FSF developed Parabola or foundation paid it development, as much as I see no lack of reliability in FSF's claims about its position and no advertising or promotion in FSF's news item. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which are required for something to be considered non-independent. WP:Independent sources says in the summary that "Independent sources have...no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." The Free Software Foundation certainly has a great deal of personal, financial, or political gain from the publication of a distribution that painstakingly (and admirably, to be quite honest) adheres to the free software movement and the FSF's guidelines. The only factor in the FSF mentioning Parabola GNU/Linux is that it complies with the FSF's guidelines, if it did not, the FSF wouldn't breathe a word about it. This situation, where one entity (the FSF) creates some guidelines, and the other (Parabola GNU/Linux) purposefully adheres to these guidelines and is then accepted by the FSF is a relationship between the two, meaning that when the FSF mentions this relationship, it is not from the position of an independent, disinterested, third-party reliable source. This is not enough to establish the notability of the article's subject. - SudoGhost 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what is FSF's personal, financial or political gain then? You are taking the idea of independent sources too broad, thus making it overly restrictive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Ahunt's statement below. - SudoGhost 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not very convincing, actually. If there was an agenda to collect as many member distributions as possible, the Gobuntu would also be on the list. It is pretty evident that FSF uses passive approach to the process of adding distributions to the list, which is a manifestation of lack of FSF's interest in growing the list. So this criterion of affiliation evidently fails. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Collect as many" was never said, nor implied. Strict guidelines do not equate to a passive approach, but it could be argued that it would actually make them even more eager to list something that does follow these guidelines, meaning the FSF reference cannot for establish the notability of the article, as it is not independent. - SudoGhost 18:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I noted Gobuntu – a fully guideline-compliant distribution which just didn't apply for confirmation. I see no indication of FSF not being independent still. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gobuntu could not apply to be placed on a list that did not at the time exist. It ended up being a short term project that ended in March 2009, one month before this List of Free GNU/Linux Distributions was created. When the list was created, Gobuntu didn't exist, and had been merged into Ubuntu as a Linux-libre option. Although this option exists, it is still very much incompatible with their guidelines. As for the independence of the FSF, it has been thoroughly explained several times by multiple editors why the FSF is not an independent source in this instance, with no evidence or arguments refuting this consensus. - SudoGhost 10:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a good idea to claim consensus against independence of FSF with equal amount of editors on both sides, majority of voters on the keep side and no more or less adequate explanation of FSF affiliation yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote. The conflict of interest that many of the keep !votes have should also be taken into consideration, as well as the fact that many of the keep !votes do not in any way address the notability issues, which is the reason the article is at AfD. Nor do they address the issue of the FSF and its independence of the article's subject. I think that this sums it up well. - SudoGhost 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have every confidence that the closing admin will read the whole discussion here carefully and make some comment on all these factors in the closing remarks. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more distributions that follow the FSF's guidelines, the more the FSF has to gain.

Could you please specify what would be FSF's gain exactly?--Arhuma (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with any standards organization, the more products that adhere to that standard the more important the standard becomes, the more influential the standards organization becomes and the more donations it will get. It doesn't matter if you are talking about FSF, ISO or ASTM, if everyone ignored the standards they set the organization would eventually be deemed "not relevant", lose support and eventually disappear. So I agree that a standards-setting organization is not independent (in a Wikipedia reference sense) from products that comply with their standards, as both are mutually endorsing each other. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So who is going to back up the claim that Parabola is a 100% free distribution, if not FSF?--Arhuma (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between WP:V and WP:N. - SudoGhost 18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell that is it, the FSF listing is verifiable, but does not confer notability, due to its lack independence. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment: The Wikipedia Comunity is a group of people that They do not to leave anything because this is not a free font for search information if not that the information is manipulated and just say that they want to say. For example GNU/Linux, the users change about Linux or my article in galego do not to do in galego according to wikipedia moderators. --Jorginho 2 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although these discussions are not a vote, this is a duplicate keep, but I'm not sure what this is trying to say. It seems to be more a comment regarding this and the use of WP:COMMONNAME concerning Linux as opposed to GNU/Linux when describing this article's subject, and not anything to do with Parabola GNU/Linux and why the article should not be deleted. - SudoGhost 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is my analysis of Parabola according to the criteria in WP:NSOFT, which says if it meets any one of the below then it may be considered notable. I wouldn't consider any one of these to be satisfactorily met, but would be willing to give multiple "half points" to allow notability. If I missed anything, speak up!
  • Discussed in reliable sources: Not that I can tell.
  • Subject of instruction in schools: Not that I can tell.
  • Subject of 3rd party manuals or reviews:
    • Inclusion in the GLDT (which is included on several Wikipedia pages).
  • Having [X] significance:
    • Historical: Too new to have historical significance
    • Technical:
      • Takes full advantage of the Yeeloong. (One of two distros that do?) I'm surprised I can't find any good citations for this; I expected to find a page about it on the Freedom Included site.
      • FSF Free Distro, which I would compare to an award by an industry group.

  ~ LukeShu (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT still requires reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the article. If you are aware of any, please either place them in the article, or on the article's talk page, so that the notability can be established. - SudoGhost 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSF is a renown reliable, independent and third party source; so far I've seen no evidence in this discussion to show the contrary. If you think it's not, you need to prove it, personal opinions are not valid arguments to delete an article. If more than one source with this characteristics is required, then a template can be placed on the page. Deletion should be reserved for extreme cases, this does not seem to be such a case at all.

By the way, I see my account is still marked SPA, although I did give references where to go and checked to verify it is not. --Arhuma (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Por la muestra se conoce el paño. As I said previously, when one entity (the FSF) creates some guidelines, and the other (Parabola GNU/Linux) purposefully adheres to these guidelines and is then accepted by the FSF, this is a relationship between the two. When the FSF comments on this relationship, it is not from the position of an independent, disinterested, third-party reliable source. This is not my opinion, but is a statement of fact. When the question is asked, "Why is Parabola GNU/Linux mentioned there?" the answer is "Because they complied with the guidelines created by the FSF." The fact that this is the answer to this question means that the FSF is not an independent source here. - SudoGhost 12:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Purposefully"? Are you trying to imply that the only purpose of making Parabola 100% free is to be recognized by FSF? That is like saying that if I make my website compliant with W3 standards, my specific purpose is to be allowed to use the W3 logo and not, for instance, a desire to be nice to users with physical disabilities. And then the W3C and I will have a "relationship". Why does the Parabola article say the distro complies with FSF's standards? Because it does. How do they prove it? By linking to FSF. Period. FSF did not participate in any way whatsoever in the development of Parabola, so it is independent and third-party. The fact that FSF sets guidelines to which people adhere, does not mean FSF has a relationship or it participates in people's activities. If it did, it would be publicly known, not a secret at all. So if you think FSF has a "relationship" with Parabola, it should be easy for you to prove it.

As per those Spanish words you write, I don't know what they mean, but they sound ironic. Can't really tell. --Arhuma (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is not known, and is irrelevant. What matters is the result. I'm not suggesting (and never have) that the FSF developed Parabola, nor was it suggested that they have a relationship outside of this situation. The reference in question, however, is a relationship between the two. Parabola GNU/Linux and the FSF interacted with one another and determined that Parabola GNU/Linux met the FSF's criteria, and was listed on their website. Therefore, when the FSF says that Parabola GNU/Linux meets the FSF's requirements, it is not from a disinterested, independent standpoint.

As for the spanish, my apologizes. It is from Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, and means "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." The fact that Parabola GNU/Linux's claim of notability is that it complies with the FSF's guidelines and was accepted by the FSF as meeting these guidelines means that the FSF is, by definition, not independent when promoting Parabola GNU/Linux. The FSF has a conflict of interest in promoting distros that adhere to their guidelines. The more something is adhered to, the more common it is. The more common it is, the awareness of it increases. The FSF wants awareness of their free software guidelines. This is the conflict of interest.

However, let's assume that my "personal opinion" that the FSF listing Parabola GNU/Linux helps strengthen the FSF's position and helps legitimize their guidelines is wrong. Let's also assume that I'm wrong in my assumption that the FSF cares about free software, and wants people to adhere to their guidelines. Let's assume they are completely disinterested in the subject, and are commenting on it from a disinterested, neutral perspective. The fact remains that they both have the potential to gain from this relationship between the two, making that reference, at best, a questionable source for establishing the notability of an article. Articles require multiple third-party reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject, not a single, questionable source. Multiple editors (myself included) have made a great deal of effort to attempt to find reliable sources for this article. Each one of us have up with nothing. Therefore, even if I'm completely wrong, that the FSF has no conflict of interest and nothing to gain from their interaction with Parabola GNU/Linux, the article is still lacking the reliable sources required to establish the notability of the subject. - SudoGhost 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no signficant independent reliable sources covering this disro to establish notability. WP:NSOFT is an essay, and not a guideline. AS for the sourcing presented above, Distrowatch is not a reliable source per the discussion aboce, nor does the endorsemnt of the FSF denote notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Linux software is the field in which we are probably the strongest, and have been since the beginning. It's appropriate for us to be somewhat more flexible in what we accept here. It technically does meet the guidelines, and the standard that the FSF is not a reliable source for what it endorses seems somewhat unjustified. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any guidelines the article meets, technically or otherwise. I haven't seen any guideline or consensus that being Linux related exempts an article from meeting notability requirements. The article has absolutely zero independent sources, not a single one. How can an article be neutral when the only even remotely reliable source is a single reference by the FSF, an non-independent endorsement? The article is WP:TOOSOON, at best. - SudoGhost 03:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are citing is not a policy or guideline but an essay, and it deals exclusively with *actors* and *films*, not relevant to this case at all. This AfD looks like a clear case in which the poor applcation of a rule could prevent us from attaining our goal, which is "to build a free encyclopedia." WP:RS: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." See also the last of the WP:FIVEPILLARS: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". And again, FSF is an independent source that attests Parabola is a 100% free distro, as has already been explained. --Arhuma (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This latest argument put forward seems to say "yes this article does not qualify for inclusion because it has no independent sources that establish notablity, but please keep it anyway, because WP:ILIKEIT and think it is important". If we are going to keep any article that even one person likes or thinks is important then we have to do away with the requirement for independent references and accept all articles regardless of their merit and notability. Wikipedia thereby becomes just a blog instead of an encyclopedia. For instance, I have a collection of dryer lint that I think is important. Now there aren't any independent reliable refs about it, but I could create a Facebook page about it and then use that as a non-independent ref to start a Wikipedia page about it as well, because the subject is important to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not what I said or implied. You are making a wrong interpretation of my comment.--Arhuma (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I wasn't responding to you, but to User:DGG, who started this particular thread and the "keep" argument he or she presented. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing Admin: In reading this whole discussion you may have correctly concluded that the use of DistroWatch as a reference to establish notability is an important issue. Some good arguments have been made above regarding this. There are several other articles that also hang on DistroWatch to establish notability, so I would appreciate it if, in closing, your remarks could include your judgment upon this issue. If you decide that it is not an independent third party reference that confers notability then we will have some more work to do on those other articles, either trying to find more refs or moving them to AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 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 delete by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per G11. (NACD) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Buczek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has all the hallmarks of a vanity bio. Not notable - 488 unique Ghits Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:30, 7 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?} 15:22, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmoamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Organization. Zero refs. Gbooks never heard of it. Nor did gnews. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 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?} 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as non-notable. Hits on Gbooks appear to mainly relate to personal names or a magazine from 100 years ago. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, delete as non-notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort McMurray Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not necessary- no relevant information to justify this page right now Zzaffuto118 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta disagree slightly- whenever there is a potential expansion team in any sport, from what I've seen, Wiki policy has been to include a page for it. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Assuming it's true the N.A.L. has made such an announcement, I'd say that's reason enough to keep this for now. It seems like a more logical page title would be Fort McMurray North American League Team, but that's just a suggestion. — NY-13021 (talk) 20:38, 10 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?} 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Found ref in local paper confirming that the team will begin play in 2013. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a policy against crystal balls, but once an announcement has been made, the page is viable. I agree that the name should be changed, probably to 13021's suggestion, but with "team" in lowercase. Ma^t_chups 18:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NavyField (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

AKS (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 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?} 15:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Article does not give rationale as to why subject is notable. Only thing that almost passes as a reference is by all accounts the developer's website. A search of the internet provides little to nothing that could be used to grant notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:17, 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 no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Butterflies International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This music and production company suffers from a paucity of rs refs. Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a search in both Chinese and English (google translate), but there's really not that many sources out there that could be considered reliable. Here's what I did find, in case anyone can build upon these: [14], [15] (this one's a press release but I'm listing it anyway in case it might be usable as a trivial source), [16]. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 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, Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 7 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?} 15:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Genuine players in Asia. In deals with nokia, mtv, baidu etc. Coverage in China Daily,[17] Channel NewsAsia,[18] Billboard[19] etc. 86.44.47.170 (talk) 05:18, 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 redirect to Rupert Bear#Characters and story. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Lily (Rupert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a minor character with questionable notability without sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's really nothing out there to show that this particular character is notable outside of the series. I'm not even particularly sure that a redirect would really be necessary either.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Keep I had no trouble finding a source. Warden (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you share with us what these sources are?  --Lambiam 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Most of the stuff I found talked about her more in the scope of the Rupert universe, so I wasn't really sure if those counted as sources that showed that she was notable outside of the series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2011 (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) 02:32, 7 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?} 15:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Harmless, but would be much better as a section in the main Rupert article. I would want to see at least one other source for notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Rupert Bear#Characters and story – unless the Colonel reveals to the rest of us what these sources are he had no trouble finding, assuming they are reliable, independent, and give non-trivial coverage, in which case we can simply Keep the article.  --Lambiam 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he added the source to the article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google books gives me no hits that relate that source to Tiger Lily. The reference in the article is presented only for the statement that the character was created by Bestall.  --Lambiam 06:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, better as a section in the main Rupert article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:19, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Kutch Vagad Sat Chovisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find sufficient rs coverage of this "social community" Article has zero refs. Tagged for notability and lack of sources for well over a year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage about whatever this "social community" is supposed to be. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 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) 02:37, 7 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?} 15:04, 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. Stubbleboy 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Magic Woman M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no significant coverage for this. This hentai was released in both Japan and the United States. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found this, but anyone can submit a review. The reviewer is a regular user. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misstaken about the situation with that review. Chris Beveridge is the founder or AnimeOnDVD.com, which later became part of Mania.com, where he was in charge of the anime and manga content (he has since left the site to start a new site of his own). While users of Mania.com can write their own reviews, those reviews are separate from the reviews written by the staff members. There is an explanation at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Situational about how to tell the two types of reviews apart (basically, a user's reviews will have a username in the URL, while the staff reviews will not). Anyway, that review is by a professional who has made a career out of reviewing anime, and who has been featured in interviews on other reliable anime sites (such as Anime News Network), making it a reliable source. Calathan (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but that is only one source. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that more sources are needed for the article to be kept. I checked a couple other sites, but didn't find any other reviews. Calathan (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Considering that this is hentai sources will be hard to find. One more review may be enough to keep for now but more sources will be needed if this comes up again. – Allen4names 18:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The two reviews at mania done years apart, are enough. Was one done on a different reliable source, before one site was bought up by the other? Anyway, this was a major release, and if one hentai site reviews it, other sites probably do as well. Just not a lot of places out there reviewing hentai these days. Hard to search for Japanese sources. The Japanese Wikipedia has an article [20]. This manga was notable enough to be turned animated into two episodes, and was made into a computer game also. Dream Focus 19:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for a keep here, what matters is sources, I see none on the Japanese Wikipedia article and so far little has been found, seeing this article is not large I would not be opposed to recreation if the sources are found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 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) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment - This has been re-listed twice so I think this should be speedily closed as no consensus. – Allen4names 16:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has no outside sources and no hint of notability. It has been tagged but nothing added. รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A significant conservative megachurch, with a series of prominent pastors, and considerable amounts of coverage in reliable sources[21] [22]. Among other things, it's received national attention for the expensive, star-crossed construction of its church building[23][24] and for the leading role it took in organizing support for California Proposition 8 in 2008. I've added a few sources; quite a bit more appears to be out there, although a lot of it is behind pay walls.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like a lot of information has been added after the deletion proposal was put up, but it seems that it is prominent both with the ministers it has and the prominence it takes on social issues, particularly proposition 8. JASpencer (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of the largest churches in San Diego County (although that may not have been clear when the article was nominated), and it and its pastor are often in the national news. I added several references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Article stated at the time of nomination that this was a megachurch with weekend attendance of 2500.  A megachurch has more than 2000 in weekend attendance.  General Wikipedia opinion is that all megachurches are wp:notable, and this has been proven once again here.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exaile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reason for notability stated or found. Of the 5 links in the references section, at the time of writing, 4 return page not found errors. Of the sites they are sourced from, I'm not sure how many could be treated as independent and/or reliable. Reference #1 is the product's official site. Reference #2 appears to little beyond a package list for Ubuntu. #3 appears to be a blog.

Searching on the Internet found only one or two mentions in sources that could be used as references.

The article seems to have a chequered history at best:

• It was previously deleted at AfD for the same reason on 1 Feb 2009.
• Re-created less than 2 months later. User:Wwwwolf denied a WP:CSD G4 request with an edit summary of "Which deletion discussion???" and added a single links as a demonstration of notability. The next day he appeared to change his mind and re-directed the article to List of Linux audio software.
• The article was restored for a second time by an anon user in August 2009
• WP: CSD G6 request was denied by User:DESiegel in January 2010
• Article was tagged for notability in January 2011.The tag was removed by User:Pantergraph 8 hours later with summary "notability well established"

Given the apparent unnotability of the subject coupled with speed that tags have been removed in the past, I feel that AfD is probably going to be the best place to decide once and for all if a) it is notable and b) If it is, push those who insist it is notable into asserting that notability on the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add: For completeness I'll add web archive links to ref#4 and ref #5. As I think these are the only significant sources currently on the page. Both appear to be reviews. In particular, I'll note that the title of the BrightHub review is perhaps a little misleading. Its title talks about "Awesomeness", however the review goes on to discuss the package in terms of "average". Pit-yacker (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: even with those references it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I added another ref (Softpedia) from the previous AfD. By the way, the previous AfD is very dubious: the voting were in favor of keeping both argument- and number-wise, the closing note is puzzling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY STRONG KEEP i like this article i learned lots.2.25.129.61 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Ignoring WP:ILIKEIT, this contribution from the above IP came in the middle of a half hour long spate of edits that were almost all vandalism see here Pit-yacker (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I though it was a kind of sarcasm about my comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Exaile has been featured in a number of blogs focusing on open source software, for instance OMG! Ubuntu - [25], Linux Journal - [26], PC World - [27], Unixmen - [28]. Clearly a notable piece of software. Pewfly (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just barely sufficient sourcing. Pages not being available are a problem, but if the reference was there once, it is probably re-findable. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buomesca Tué Na Bangna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD by author with no reason given, player has not made his first team debut therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has also not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Don't see how a player who has yet to make a senior appearance can be deemed notable unless he's received an unusually large amount of coverage, which he doesn't appear to have. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT since what coverage there is, is trivial, and Mr. Bangna has not appeared in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:38, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kam Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of the company who have requested deletion of the article via WP:OTRS. Their comment: "We have noticed that information published on your website about our airline are not accurate, as a result we would like to request removal of the following pages [sic] from your website immediately." --Errant ^(chat!) 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Airlines are held to be notable. Issues with the article should be flagged up on the talk page with links to reliable sources that show information is inaccurate, so that any errors can be corrected. I suspect that the main cause of this request is the existence of the "Accidents and incidents" section. Fact of life, airlines suffer accidents from time to time, those accidents get reported, it is proper to include them in an airline article. Just because the company doesn't like this does not give them the right to dictate to Wikipedia what articles it can and can't host. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW if you get a chance to give the articles a quick look over then that would be handy. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They cannot govern Wikipedia's contents. Why don't they go and expand/modify the article for themselves instead of requesting deletion?--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep airline meets notability requirements any content issues can be dealt with on article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yes, it's easy to see why the airline might not want this to be seen, but the information is notable and properly-sourced, and the airline is not a private individual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as clearly notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - airline is notable and information is publically available. Wikipedia is not censored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The airline is notable. The information in the article is properly sourced and independently verifiable. Any weight or balance issues can be fixed through normal editing. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This airline is definitely notable and is pretty well sourced, and I don't see why it should be deleted. I wonder what the airline's reasons are for asking for the article on them to be deleted; it seems weird that an airline would do that. And Wikipedia is not censored; if airline thinks this article is biased against them, they should explain why on the talk page so that we can help make it not biased. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The airline is notable.- William 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm surprised wiki are even considering deleting it, they should simply say no, other than that the article itself can be edited and reducted to only contain content thats accurately referenced, maybe become a stub. 116.71.9.56 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why reduce to a stub? There is very little material in the article which is not verified, and nothing contentious is unverified. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability. A couple of mentions in the local press, but doesn't appear to have actually done anything. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not yet notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoke Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about an instant messaging mobile app. The sources provided are thin and only demonstrate the existence of the app, not its notability. Searches find no news or book results and only minor mentions on blogs and on social sites. Prod was contested without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability; this advertisement was created by User:Yokemessenger, and it shows. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - indeed fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I would also note, that both categories of mobile software and IM software are generally receive broader coverage then most of other software out there, but this item doesn't pass even the most liberal requirements. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found no notability for this application. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 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.