< 21 January	23 January >

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Europenews[edit]

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

No evidence this site passes WP:WEB. This is just an advocacy site masquerading as a news source. The fact that "Islam Q&A" is their main theme of (Breivik-style) "news" should be unsettling. See [1] for a sample piece of news from them. No independent coverage given in reliable sources. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with WP:WEB non-notability. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Also no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources - passing mentions, no more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They get an occasional citation for stuff translated from Nordic languages, e.g. [2] was cited in [3]. But that is an English summary of a JP article [4], with an activism link at the bottom of the English version “ Boycott Durban II ”. News sources aren't usually this obviously advocating a position. I wasn't able to find even a one sentence independent coverage about the site's nature and contents focus. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this instance, whether they are a reliable source or not isn't the issue (though they certainly aren't); it's just that a citation or a brief mention does not constitute the significant coverage necessary for a WEB or GNG pass. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 25 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. Courcelles 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark MacDonald[edit]

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

Delete – Subject does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL.

A "Regionalliga" is a a regional team (see de:regionalliga), not a national team — that fails Criterion 1.
He only ever played for a university team in the US; so he wasn't selected in any rounds of the NBA draft — that fails Criterion 2.
He didn't play in the CBA or the NBA D-League — that fails Criterion 3.

Therefore he fails all three criteria from WP:NBASKETBALL. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fly By Night. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fly By Night. Yonskii (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Information
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Adler[edit]

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

An autobiography where the subject is non-notable and all references are self-published. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 21:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable Computer Scientist Jccort (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable computer scientist, originator or collaborator of algorithms used in almost EVERY computer (gzip, Adler hash). NASA, JPL, and CalTech are /not/ personal websites. Avi (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search for his name plus Mars yields many reliable sources discussing him as a key player in Mars exploration. This article needs to be expanded not deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'd like to point out that while the sites of NASA, JPL, and CalTech are not personal websites, many of the pages are still self-published. Many employees have a user page or description that is written by themselves, and hosting it at nasa.gov/researchstaff/examplename does not make it more reputable than hosting it at examplename.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.229.2.157 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references should be better, but he is a notable programmer & scientist. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable computer scientist, with heavily cited publications. Nominator should note WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.74.44 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The page just needs more reliable sources but he is a notable computer scientist. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:21, 24 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. Michig (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cargolux Flight 7933[edit]

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

Non notable incident. William 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -William 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bizzare incident but not notable enough for its own article. Worth mentioning in the airport article but fails WP:AIRCRASH/WP:GNG for a stand-alone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although WP:Aircrash would seem not to apply to this accident, I believe that it does pass WP:GNG. It is established and verified that both aircraft and vehicle had permission to be on the active runway, so there was a major ATC mess-up somewhere. The investigation is still ongoing, and we are awaiting the final report to be released. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two years later and a final report is still being waited on for a minor accident. It's much more likely to have been done and forgotten. Especially in light of this report[5] on Luxembourg's last fatal incident. It took 13 months for it to be issued. Why would it take two years in this case?- William 13:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two years plus is not unusual. It took over 8 years before the final report came out in respect of Crossair Flight 850. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Different country, entirely different type of incident. If we want to do that comparison, how about the crash that killed those hockey players last year? The final report was out in 3 months. The other incident I cited took place in Luxembourg as did Cargolux so the comparisons would be more relevant. This Cargolux incident deserves nothing more than a note in the airport article. How historically important is it?- William 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to be notable for a stand-alone article just a mention in the airport article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable as per WP:AIRLINES notability guidelines.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:50, 23 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) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Mitrichev[edit]

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

There seem to have been several debates regarding notability of olympiad medalists, and I understand there is no consensus on eligibility. However, I still believe they should satisfy WP:GNG, which this person does not. The only sources that I found talked about him winning the facebook competition, which I think is an issue under WP:1E

SPat ^talk 20:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a medal in an olympiad is not an achievement of the kind that warrants a Wikipedia entry, since many gold medals are awarded within a single olympiad. However, Petr Mitrichev won Facebook Hacker Cup, Google Code Jam, the TopCoder Open and the TopCoder Collegiate Challenge (twice). Each of these had tens of thousands of participants. Also, on Topcoder as of today he competed 282 times in single round algorithm contests, winning 82 of them. In each of these he faced a competition of between 500 to 1000 coders within TopCoder's highest division. I believe this makes him notable. JustJohan (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when Googling him, don't forget to also search for his name in Cyrillic: Петр Митричев JustJohan (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have a guideline for notability of competition winners in place, and thus we have to rely on WP:GNG to establish notability. For that, we need secondary sources that have non-trivial coverage of the subject. I do not believe that the news articles (that say he won the facebook challenge etc.) qualify as non-trivial. If we can find such sources - for eg. detailed biographical news articles (in any language) - they may establish notability. SPat ^talk 18:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue he is eligible under WP:ATH

EgorKulikov (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here started a discussion on improvement of this article. We suppose the Petr is one of most influential persons in competitive programming world. He participates also in trainings, lectures etc. Please allow a bit more time for us to improve this article.

Also, if it is possible, give some hints to us (on example of the other programming sportsman page Reid_Barton) of the ways to prove significance of the discussed person. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion Gork (talk • contribs) 07:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Rodion Gork 07:36 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (anonymous user?) removed mine and Johan's earlier comments - might I remind concerned user that editing others' comments on talk pages is considered against good etiquette. Getting back to the discussion, @EgorKulikov: It's debatable whether the "Generally acceptable standards" for sportspeople are applicable here. To repeat, I think it's best to be able to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. @Rodion Gork: I think it would be worthwhile to formulate a notability guideline for science olympiad etc. winners, although I do not have much experience with that. Meanwhile, the issue is not whether the article is well-written (it is not), but whether an article should exist in the first place - for which you have to establish notability. Also, it would be helpful to have a discussion about improvements on the article's talk page rather than on an external site. Cheers, SPat ^talk 15:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There is a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article currently has many sources; most are unreliable. Only the Register article would qualify as a reliable source, however it is primarily about the competition with only incidnental coverage of Mitrichev as the winner. My own searches only turn up more press releases and incidental mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Two of the sources provided by EgorKulikov below represent coverage in reliable sources with Mitrichev being teh primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ребят, да идите в жопу. Вы (как и я) - просто ничтожество по сравнению с Петей. There is million of contestans like him, he did nothing great, so i think this article is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.140.8 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links to articles about him in Russain magazines:

RG and Ogoniok are part of major mainstream media in Russia

EgorKulikov (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The first link is not a reliable source, but the rg.ru and ogoniok,com links are news articles featuring Mitrichev as the primary subject and contribute to establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage (e.g. [6], [7],[8]) about different events related to the article subject. Some of these sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Had WP:ATH been applicable, the notability of the subject would have been proven. In this case it's not about sports, but he is has been a winner in several world-level contests that are well-known in the related field. Rjgodoy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Those are two press releases and a minor mention. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Computer programming (to more precise, Competitive Programming or Sport Programming) has grew beyond students' science Olympiads and should be categorized as mind sport ([9], [10]), thus WP:ATH is applicable here. Please note that the notability of this case is gained not by winning medals in a few Olympiads, but leading a 'Mind sport' for several years. --155.69.2.11 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not believe the athletes guideline has been expanded to mind sports. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I apology for my confusion. I am very new to the whole 'notability' concept in Wiki. I linked this case to chess (Mind sport) - which I consider very similar. There are lots of articles about chess grand-master on Wiki. For example, Peter Svidler and Alexander Morozevich doesn't seem to have any reliable resources according to WP:GNG, and I believe if I tried I could find many more similar articles. According to Wiki notability guidelines, I could only find these satisfy WP:ATH. Could you please give a short explanation on which notability guidelines these case meet? --155.69.2.11 (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - The WP:ATHLETE guideline is applicable for athletes in physical sports, so doesn't apply in this case. There is no specific guideline for participants in mind sports. As such applicable inclusion guideline is WP:GNG which is used for all subjects. As for issues with other articles, we don't usually consider other articles' state in an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is an inspiration for more then half of the current and a lot of the past computer programming competitors. Some of his achivements are legendary and up until now he is used as an example. A few years in a raw he has won the Russian Open Cup - one of the most difficult competitions in the world - on his own, while the competition is for teams of three people. He has achieved the highest rating in Top Coder of all times and in almost all the competetive websites he is in top 3. He will forever be an idol fоr thousands of people and has deserved it better then most of the pop idols(for instance) that all have their pages here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izomorphius (talk • contribs) — Izomorphius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - whether he is an inspiration or not does not establish notability without reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far, we have found one reference, the Ogoniok article that has non-trivial coverage, I'm not so sure about the one in RG as it is mostly an interview. Do we count this as "significant, sustained coverage"? Per GNG, the anwer is not automatic: The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. I'd like to hear other views on this. SPat ^talk 19:03, 29 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. Sandstein 20:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Edda[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NBOOK and any expansion is inevitably going to give undue weight to the author's now very fringe theories. The bibliography entry in Laurence Waddell is sufficient coverage. joe•roe^t•c 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on basis of not apparently meeting relevant notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. "Eden triad" appears to be discussed only in this book, and this book does not appear to be the subject of significant comment anywhere. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep after sterling work by Silver seren. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This book does not appear to pass any of our notability requirements for books. I see six references in Google Scholar to this book, only one of which seems to be in a well-cited notable publication, and I don't see any notable contemporary reviews or mentions in notable contemporary publications in the usual bibliographical databases. However, it is absolutely NOT the case that expanding an article on a notable book dedicated to a fringe theory will "inevitably" give undue weight to the theory. Fringe theories do not disappear when the mainstream sticks its fingers in its ears and pretends they don't exist (and that's intellectually dishonest in any event): fringe theories disappear when they are brought to light and discussed extensively and neutrally, with excellent references to reliable sources, so that their deficiencies are obvious to the casual reader. That's where due weight should be applied: truth seeks light. --NellieBly (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But this isn't a notable book and there aren't (as far as I can find) any mainstream reliable sources that discuss it. Hence, any coverage beyond the stub we have would inevitably have to rely on the book itself and therefore give undue weight to it. I wasn't making a general statement about articles on fringe topics. joe•roe^t•c 21:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Did any of you guys even look for sources at all? Like the 1,870 Google Books hits? The 30 pages in the biography alone are enough to expand the article to even Good Article status, not to mention the New York Times review and commentary in places like The Spectator, The Nation and athenæum, The British Museum Quarterly, not to mention the tons of other books that discuss the subject. Silver seren^C 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy of the two sources you linked. I notice from the blurbs provided that in both the term British Eda appears only once and is mentioned in passing in the The British museum quarterly; that does not seem like a significant mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snippet view doesn't always show every instance a word is used in a book. Not to mention that the review in The Nation is discussed in this book, implying that the review is substantial enough and, since it says "Another reviewer", meaning there are other reviews discussed in that book as well. Not to mention the more than 1800 other mentions in Google books. You have to realize that you're dealing with a book from the 1930s. That it has this much recovered news and book info about it (and is still being mentioned significantly in books today) shows that it is notable for what it discusses. Silver seren^C 23:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really odd. When I searched Google Books last night I found virtually nothing, now I find a number of sources. Sometimes I hate Google. :-) Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because they have to have a complicated mathematical code for the structure of searches, not to mention added code that places more emphasis in different regions of the world, sometimes it just conks out and acts like there's nothing when there really is. Silver seren^C 06:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have direct access to the sources above? Have you read the sources and further reading you have added to the article? It seems a major issue to base the keep off articles that few have access to so that we can verify it. I wouldn't have an issue with for example, merge pending substantial expansion to justify notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to have direct access to them. Just from seeing that they are reviews and to see all the other available sources on Gooble Books, notability is pretty clear for this book. Like I said before, to be able to find this much coverage of a book from the 1930s, when we haven't even tried looking harder for the more buried stuff because of that, shows that this is an extremely notable book for us to find as much as there is, not to mention that the book is mentioned in other books that have been published even up to this past year, thus the importance of it is enduring. Silver seren^C 15:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And i've already expanded the article a significant amount. And that was with barely going through two pages of the biography. Silver seren^C 15:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author biography, expanding (if possible) the other descriptions in the book entries there as well. I don't see a need for a separate article unless someone writes one with quite a lot more info, in which case they can split it out again. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear that a subject is notable and that it can be expanded significantly (as the biography reference attests), then it should have it's own article. Silver seren^C 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the expansion going to be based purely on the biography? Surely a common sense approach would be that if most if not all of the cited article content is from the biography it suggests that it is reasonable for wikipedia to follow suit and have a section on the book in the authors wikipedia page. Justifing the existence of the article through WP:GOOGLEHITS seems a bad metric to judge notability also, since for the most part the significance of the mention in the sources can not be verified. It seems none of the criteria for the WP:NBOOK guidelines have been met. Specifically this section on non-contemporary books highlights the issue: We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering i've been adding in other references to the article as well, I think i'm dealing with that issue. As for your quoted comment, this book very clearly meets that. It is highly written about and has been written about for the past 80 years, even until today. Its place in literature seems significant, since it was one of the first to suggest that the Elder Edda was from Scotland, which was later proven correct. Silver seren^C 16:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Laurence Waddell. Does not merit a separate article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address anything in regards to the sources. Silver seren^C 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am opposed to article zealotry. Go to wikia.com and start your own Waddell Wiki. - Frankie1969 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what that means. You have not referred to any policies of notability or anything in regards to this article. There are clear and obvious sources discussing this subject, which I have exhibited by improving the article in question. Silver seren^C 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just gone and added some info to the article. Silver seren^C 05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The article is currently being significantly improved by silver seren and the progress so far suggest it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work by Silver seren makes a compelling case for notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot more sources than I'd found, so I'm withdrawing my original nomination. I'm still concerned that the article doesn't make it clear that much of the book is absolute rubbish, but it is notable. joe•roe^t•c 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the book (except the little that is in the article), if you elaborate on your concerns on the article talk page it would be a great help (also with any reliable sources if available), cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per admirable rescue work by User:Silver seren. Current version bears no resemblance to version nominated for deletion. Applied sources put this work far past retention bar and demonstrate potential for growth and improvement. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 31 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. There were two challenges, no sources and no notability, but both can be addressed by adding sources. Sources have duly been added so no grounds for deletion remain. NAC—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thumb twiddling[edit]

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

Nomination: no sources for the last four years. No indication of notability. No real hope for improvement. Rklawton (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The phrase is ubiquitous and in my opinion the encyclopedia would be improved if a sourced piece on this activity and nervous tic can be produced. Content here goes well beyond a dictionary definition. This would be a good one for RESCUE SQUAD to take a look at, in my opinion. No formal recommendation at this time. 02:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4,000 results on Google books. Have personally added two references. Cloudz 679 22:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1940–1944). Stifle (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1944 Camisette Air Crash[edit]

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

Not notable as this is an article on a wartime Dakota crash in France with a loss of 23 persons, sad but hardly unusual in wartime and I cant see anything unusual in what are hundreds of similar operational wartime accidents MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:AIRCRASH, not a notable accident. There were hundreds of thousands of aircraft crashes during WWII, nothing makes this one stand out as worth a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable incidents don't suddenly become non-notable because they took place in war time. As a matter of fact, wartime aviation disasters like this are frequently considered more historic due to their wartime relevance. Here were are in in 2012, over 65 years after the incident, are we are talking about it, an obvious indication of longevity of encyclopedic interest. --Oakshade (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I vehemently oppose this circular claim of notability. What a horrible line of reasoning. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When this editor uses that type of argument, you have to wonder if his AFD votes should be taken seriousuly at all.- William 16:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability standard. Sumanch (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' per nom. This should be mentioned in the Mijanès article, and is, but a stand-alone is unnecessary as it wasn't a notable crash. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1940–1944). No need to retain redirect. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. If someone notable had died in the crash, the article could stay.- William 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is notable, it is part of WWII history, it is well researched and referenced. There is an entire exhibition in Usson dedicated to this incident. Where on earth did this come from?? Wikidwitch (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- (I'll copy to talk page if kept and not addressed) 23 on board, but injuries & fatalities add to 25 (Fatalities should be 17, unless ground death occured, since one is explained as injured, died later). Dru of Id (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect; although the content is well referenced, and therefore meets WP:VER, the event itself does not appear to meet WP:EFFECT. That being said due to the fact that the subject of the article meets WP:INDEPTH, it can also be argued that it meets WP:GNG. Due to these two things I am suggesting that the article be redirected, as suggested by Mjroots, but a redirect be left to the appropriate subsection. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragic but WP:RUNOFTHEMILL wartime accident. WP:NOTMEMORIAL may also apply. Lots of aircraft crash in wartime, unfortunatly; this was just another one of them. While information on the accident should be in the mentioned list, it should be written from scratch, as there is no need to retain a redirect here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1940–1944). This was not a war related accident but weather related. Even now, nearly 70 years later, weather-related plane crashes are still not considered run-of-the-mill. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are weather-related airline crashes. That a military transport crashed, especially in the 1940s, is run-of-the-mill. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no references to back up the lasting impact claim, the links are blog and specialized war information sites that store a lot of wartime information without regards to outside world importance. If it had at least one example nation-wide press coverage... Max Semenik (talk) 10:09, 31 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Cornerstone 2000 (One Bad Pig album)[edit]

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

Zero gnews hits, both gbooks hits refer to passing mention in the same book. Zero refs in article, and tagged for that for over 5 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this album; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 01:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage to indicate this is a notable album as required by WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 01:42, 29 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 all. Michig (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis Papadopoulos[edit]

(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) 19:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the Kitsiou and Intzidis nominations were added after the delete !vote above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My view remains the same - all three are non-notable. Giant Snowman 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as original PRODer of Kitsiou and Intzidis. Featuring as an unused substitute in a fully professional match doesn't grant notability. – Kosm1 fent 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all = no evidence any of these article pass our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:22, 24 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 New Brunswick School District 02#Elementary schools. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Glen School, New Brunswick[edit]

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

An unsourced stub article since 2007, I can find no indication of notability via reliable sources. Delete or merge per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. This K-4 school -- with zero independent gbooks hits, and zero gnews hits, lacks the RS coverage that would -- in light of precedent -- support notability such as would lead us to keep it as a stand-alone article. Nothing in this zero-refs/challenged text to consider merging, so delete or redirect seem the more appropriate closes to consider.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school board, New Brunswick School District 02#Elementary schools. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once this AfD passes, I may just boldly merge the rest of the elementary schools in Moncton to New Brunswick School District 02#Elementary schools, if they're no more notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or redirect, if the text lacks RS sourcing?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry, what's the difference between the two? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Redirect" means that a reader searching for the search term will land at the target article. "Merge" has the same impact (vis-a-vis a reader searching for the search term), but also means text from the original article will be "merged" into the text of the target article -- this also may require the ~~closer~~ merging editor to reflect the history of the original article in the new article (for copyrights reasons). Others can probably explain this more articulately than I have ...--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. Then yes, I just meant redirect to a mention in the school board list. As discussed previously, I sure don't intend to merge any text into target, if such text is non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Brunswick School District 02 per standard practice. Same can and ought to be done for the other elementary schools. PK T(alk) 18:20, 23 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Townsend (tennis)[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn She in fact passes WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 22. Snotbot t • c » 18:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 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 consensus is insufficient RS to establish notability, Gnan garra 02:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pumphouse Brewery, New Brunswick[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources indicating that this establishment meets our notability requirements, at this time. (Note that there are other establishments elsewhere by the same name). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the creator has just added two awards from a Canadian brewing association, for two of the company's beers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possibly notable, though typically a single location brewpub is unlikely to meet WP:GNG. Coverage like this [11] is good, but its about the only one I can find that isn't run of the mill. Claim of wide distribution of its beer is another plus. The prior AfDs for Two Brothers Brewing is a good precedent to consider. If it is deleted, I want to note for the record that the current content is not very substantial.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Milowent, did you find that Star ref by a Gnews search? I'm curious. It's a very good one: the Star is Canada's largest circulation paper (I think) and is not a local one, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall; I may have followed up my gnews search with a general google search for "pumphouse brewery" and "moncton"--you would think gnews would catch everything like this, but oddly enough it doesn't seem to sometimes. It may have something to do with papers that keep separate pay archives (like the Star; also many British papers), I've never investigated why.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did both, Gnews and general but still missed it, as did the creator, I think, who I know was looking, too. Good catch. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait there something screwy here. Greg Nash, cited in the TO article and elsewhere as the creator, is omitted from the establishment's own website as the founder. And we see here that Nash left to set up a new place and brand. All the WP:RS we're finding is about Greg Nash's notable brews, not this place sans Nash. In fact, the current Pumphouse seems to disavow any connection to the previous incarnation, claiming to have been "founded" by someone else the year Nash moved on. So I'm beginning to think that while Nash may be a notable brewer, there is no connection between this place and his old establishment of the same name. I'm still supporting deletion and I believe WP:NOTINHERITED may pertain, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just don't see the coverage about this brewery that establishes notability. We have the review of the product in the Star which is good, but beyond that, it gets thin. With respect to Greg Nash, he was the brewmaster (see [12]), but that doesn't make him the owner or founder. In fact, the link cited above simply states he joined the Pumphouse in 2008. With the other information we have, this just tells us he was hired as a brewmaster. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. Gotcha. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant WP:IRS. A beer review in The Star? If the usually dedicated and persistent Milowent can't find anything more significant, my reasonable search is unlikely to find anything better. Just not enough RS to establish notability. BusterD (talk) 17:27, 31 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. Michig (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Breer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Creator has a COI with the subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading both news articles, I fail to see how this person meets WP:N. Having two news stories from the same site on what appears to be a blog does not meet those standards. -Fumitol|talk|cont 20:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to be notable in any respect. I'd go so far as to suggest this could be speedy deleted under A7 ("No indication of importance"). cmadler (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing it either. Looks like one of many reporters in the world.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Cmadler. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not appropriate for speedy delete: the article makes assertions of his significance with sources (questionable though they may be); there are plenty of GNews hits [13][14], with information about him sprinkled here and there; and, as an on-camera reporter for NFL Network (and in Boston before that), he has acquired a public identity. However, I haven't been able to dig up any substantial coverage about him beyond a brief Ohio State alumni association profile[15], and a few articles in the Boston papers following his career moves, some blocked by paywalls that don't allow me to see enough to see if there's anything in there beyond routine coverage (e.g. [16], for which the Google News result includes the following: "Sudbury native Albert Breer felt the heat when he recently moved to Texas to cover the Cowboys as a sports reporter for the Dallas Morning News"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. While he writes lots of articles, not finding significant independent sources that are about him.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak article.Thundersport (talk) 16:30, 25 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 withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Soto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Creator has a COI with the subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soto is now a highly visible presence on the NFL Network. There is lots of stuff out there about her[17]. Much of it is of the WP:HOTTIE variety, some of which might qualify as WP:RS, but even leaving that sort of thing aside for the moment, I think there's enough more "serious" material to establish her notability. Sources about her work as a journalist include:

"FSN Reporter Soto Always On the Go", Los Angeles Daily News, February 18, 2005
"Nothing Prepared Soto for Tragedy", Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2005
"Soto Stays True to Her Roots", Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2005
"Soto learning to geek it as a fantasy follower", Los Angeles Daily News, September 8, 2011 (also posted here)
2004 Variety article verifying her local Emmy[18]
Photo at LIFE.com of Soto accepting her 2010 Genii Award from American Women in Radio and Television (now called Alliance for Women in Media).

There seem to be other potential sources behind paywalls, such as "Lindsay Soto rides the Olympics' emotional rollercoaster"[19] and "Spotting Soto"[20] in the Los Angeles Daily News; "Soto at home on sidelines"[21] in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. I appreciate Eagles247's concern about COI, but as written the article seems to stick to facts and I don't see anything unduly promotional; of course, anything inappropriate can and should be edited out (and the article does need to be updated). On balance, I think she has enough of a public identity now that notability is established and users of the encyclopedia would reasonably expect to find information about her. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:42, 23 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. Michig (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool rangers[edit]

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

Non-notable junior football team; no reliable sources and no notable achievements. Previous PROD declined by author. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FOOTYN. Junior football teams are non-notable unless they meet wider criteria of WP:N - which this one doesn't. Cloudz 679 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article for a non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk)
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:32, 27 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. recreation (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colocation America) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colocation America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail Notability for businesses/organizations. Also, 2nd nomination - it looks like the first time the article was supposed to be deleted? SarahStierch (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted it on 2 July 2010 following the close, it was recreated less than 60 days later. The situation hasn't gotten better- the major issue is notability, but secondary is the advert content. tedder (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt: re-creation of previously deleted material, garden variety IT business. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 23 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. Michig (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CookieQ[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable software product. Prod was removed without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted because...

CookieQ has been linked to as the first of only 3 innovative tools highlighted in a post by European Vice President Neelie Kroes. Furthermore, it is the only one that is a universal off-the-shelf client side solution. More evidence will be presented later this week. In the UK the deadline for compliance with the cookie law is May 2012 and CookieQ is the only off-the-shelf product designed for SMEs that is available.

Here is page that links to CookieQ

"Others have started to offer various tools or services they say help businesses to comply with e-Privacy obligations on cookies (just to pick some random examples: here, here or here). While it is not for me to endorse any particular tool or service, I applaud this overall development, which is bringing some genuine innovation;"

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/donottrack/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tartanlass (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- mention referenced above is trivial, and product has no other notability. A412 (Talk * C) 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable back-office product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:34, 23 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the last surviving players who played in a World Series[edit]

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

Per the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members (2nd nomination), this is unsourced, trivial, original research, and therefore not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If sources are a major issue, citations to each player can be added for Baseball Reference. Other than that, this definitely deserves to stay along with plenty of the other baseball articles that seem trivial or contain some original research. We're talking about the World Series here, that's not trivial at all. The World Series is definitely notable and the last survivors from historical events is notable so the combination really solidifies its notability. There's plenty of articles that may seem trivial to some but are very valuable to others. Not to sound generic, but if we deleted everything that took some original research, readers would really be missing out of plenty of beneficial and accurate content. The notability should not be in question, especially to for a baseball fan. The precedent is weak as well; "oldest hall of famers" compared to "last world series survivors". Outside of baseball and some ages I see nothing more than an attempt to liken both of them as the previously discussed "trivial". I would be shocked if other baseball fans, or anyone for that matter, thinks this article should be eradicated. This article is brand new and it can be improved with some references. I think it's a good start and eventually this could be a great list. RoadView (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: RoadView (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see a lot of effort went into this, so I am a little sorry to have to vote for a delete, but this is original research. Note that the issue is not whether the information itself is verifiable, but whether the topic itself has received coverage in reliable sources. If it has not, then this is a work of synthesis with no clear notability. Indrian (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article may be accurate, but no evidence has been provided that sportswriters, sports fans, etc. take particular notice of who is or was the last survivor of each World Series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial, no real-world significance of surviving World Series participants. Show something on par with the demonstrably notable survivors of major wars and you'll have something. Tarc (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that this list meets Wiki standards for inclusion, but it's an interesting list nonetheless. I lean toward Delete but I'm not going to vote yet. As I'd hate to see the list disappear completely, I would suggest that the list creator recreate it over at Baseball-Reference Bullpen, where this sort of list is more likely to be welcomed (and kept). — NY-13021 (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. BRMo (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, I respect that my effort put into this article has been acknowledged. Second, as far as adding this to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen, if it were just as easy as copy and paste I would do, but a lot more work is needed which means I will not be able to get around to at the current time. In regards to it being labeled trivial; I can't stress enough how not trivial it is. The last living person from a popular once a year championship series with players from around the world is not notable? Maybe for some that might be the case, but also for some the last survivor of a war or the tallest building might be. Notability is subjective but this isn't even borderline in my opinion. There's no need to target this as trivial just because it's not of utmost importance. There's nothing to lose by leaving this article alone just because it doesn't have universal appeal.

So basically this comes down to verifiability/original research. I concede that I had to check which player was the last surviving and that even if cited that players bio on BR, this would still be labeled as original research. That's the part that perplexes me. If we needed precise verifiability for every entry on every list then we should be deleting a whole lot more. Take List of largest hotels in the world, if I look at most of those entries, there are no citations and I don't know if 1 is missing or not. Or List of Vice Presidents of the United States by age of ascension, it takes several clicks to verify if these are correct as no direct citations are provided. How about Oldest living United States governor or Earliest serving United States governor? Again it looks as if a reputable Wikipedia editor in good faith could not find direct sources but saved us the time by compiling a list for us that we could verify on our own if needed, albeit with a lot more clicks. All these lists have similarities to the article currently in question, so why is this one that much worse that all of those? It's not. I am not at all in favor of original research when it comes to opinions or in not list articles. But when it comes to lists, sometimes it does take a little bit more effort and a little less direct verifiability to make them, but they are every bit as welcome and informative in my opinion. Wikipedia is about what the users want and if my article is admired, but still deleted only on account of some, but not entirely all, original research, then something is very wrong here. If you like the list but feel it should be deleted based solely on following the verifiability then you should advocate for an amendment in policy regarding original research. Established Wikipedia editors creating list only articles should be given a little extra room for research. So much would be lost if we rid Wikipedia of all lists without exact verifiability. I would be completely disgusted after all that I mentioned, that this list only article gets deleted. Enough baseball editors know this this list is beneficial and accurate so perhaps they should have more weight on arbitrating an exception because they can attest to it's accuracy.

Not to be repetitious, but in conclusion, so many other lists, so many instances of no direct verifiability, so many lists that are not deleted, this list should be no different. Sometimes it's the only way to present informative content. There should be certain exceptions and hopefully you feel that policy should be amended in some way to allow for such exceptions if you still can't bring yourself to supporting this article. Thank you. RoadView (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Reference Bullpen may be the place for this list. If you can't finish it to get it on their wiki before this AfD closes, I suggest you copy it to your userspace, so you can work on it there. If you need more information on what that is and how to do it, feel free to ask. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Baseball-Reference Bullpen uses the same Wiki style and coding as here. I bet you could have copied-and-pasted the list to B-R Bullpen in about the same time you took to write the very long comment above. — NY-13021 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all respect to the author, whether many of us find the list interesting or not has nothing to do with whether it belongs in an encyclopedia - coverage of this idea in reliable sources is what establishes the notability of a list, not the opinions of any of us. As to the irrelevance of other lists, well, there are a lot of other lists that should also be deleted - makes no difference to this argument. I hope you find another home for your research. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN, as it has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources."—Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I can see I have gotten nowhere. I tried to copy this to BR Bullpen but the formatting was incorrect and it would have taken some work to make it look presentable. I would rather plead my case here than work on something I just worked on. I really hope everyone sees my point of view on this. I saw plenty of original research and questionable lists on Wikipedia so I figured I can get in on it and there wouldn't be a problem. Then, to have other articles not come under any scrutiny, yet to have mine deleted is baffling and unfair. I never would have made this if I didn't see other lists with indirectly verifiable content. So there is precedent for my list and it does matter that other lists appear to have plenty of original research or verifiability issues and have not been deleted. I am personally a big fan of some of the lists I've seen on here and I want the vast majority of them to stay, but it is hypocritical for this list to have so much opposition and others to seemingly be given a pass. There's a time and a place for exceptions, and original research needs to be modified, just a little, to allow some of this great content to see the light of day. I hope my comments were carefully considered and not just disregarded. I'm curios to know exactly what kind and how much coverage this topic or each entry would need to be allowed to stay. I've said about all I can say. It's such a shame to have received no support on this. Unless something extraordinary happens, the users have spoken, and have made it clear that original research is enough for this article, but not others, to be erased. RoadView (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said might be true, but it looks like you're going to lose this AfD barring a last-minute miracle. People cut-and-paste things from here to BR Bullpen (and vice versa) all the time, so it's odd you ran into problems. I hope you've saved a copy of the page to your computer and/or find the time to post it at BR Bullpen. I believe it will get a warmer welcome over there. — NY-13021 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do have a backup of the article if someday this kind of stuff is welcome. I have found a couple scattered sources that mention a couple of the last surviving players, which makes me wonder how much needs to be covered for the article to be allowed. As for BR Bullpen, I'm not sure why it's messed up when I copy and paste. I'm thinking some of the templates don't match up, also parts of the poorly formatted table could be an issue. It's just frustrating to work on something again after I already spent a lot of time on it once. RoadView (talk) 11:58, 24 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?} 17:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Modic[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:notability requirements. Only source is his own website. Google searches find nothing notable. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple of ref links to his exhibitions in the UK in the 80s-90s. There is also evidence of a critical monograph, probably originally in English as the credited writer is/was an active art critic in the UK at that time, but I haven't located an English version. (But I'm not sure this is enough for WP:ARTIST criterion 4.) AllyD (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some links to the Museums and Galleries where it is claer that Mr Marko Modic had an exhibition. And I've changed the introduction text, with references from where the text is cited. I would be glad to know if I have to add/change anything else. Thanks for advice.3xdvanajst (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to [22], "the world art circles ascribe him a special position due to originality, difference and the colorfulness of his art works". He had a large retrospective exhibition in the Whyte Museum, Canada, in February 2011,[23][24] and another one in Tivoli, Ljubljana (125 photos).[25][26] He has been described as one of the most prominent and world-wide known Slovenian artists by several reliable sources.[27][28][29][30] I believe he meets the WP:ARTIST criteria 1 and 4b and is notable in general. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eleassar and my own research. SarahStierch (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 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) 05:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Vekić[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails NTENNIS indeed. Only one minor title in ITF $10k. Too early. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient level of famous to appear in wikipedia. Thundersport (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question How so? I see no indication of her meeting and of the points of N:TENNIS, and she definitely fails GNG. --Ravendrop 08:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:TENNIS. Hasn't won a Grand Slam tournament, wasn't ranked inside the top 3 of the junior rankings and and a $10k tournament as senior isn't enough. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:26, 29 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 currently fails notability guidelines, Gnan garra 02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McPhillips[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is a junior player, currently active in Junior Australian Open. Has one ITF title, but only in a small $10k tournament. So she fails WP:NTENNIS. Too early to create this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NTENNIS as a junior player, who hadn't won a Grand Slam title and wasn't ranked in the top 3 of the junior rankings. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a lot of sourcing out there out her, e.g., "one of the top junior tennis players in America" (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 8, 2011)[31], ("McPhillips is currently ranked No. 1 in the nation for girls 18 singles by the United States Tennis Association.") [32], [33], [34], all suggests she is notable despite age.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all tennis notability guidelines. Must be ranked no.3 in the world for a junior or have won one of the four Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But she seems to meet GNG, or least arguably does?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NTENNIS and WP:TOOSOON. I'll assert subject only meets GNG if we ignore WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Sources provided by User:Milowent are local coverage (Plain Dealer actually says "local youth tennis standout" in headline). If Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, it isn't the Northern Ohio area sports section. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 31 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. Michig (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FinanceMalta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FinanceMalta (2nd nomination)

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

heavy tone of advertisement, does not appear relevant Alexroller (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotion and not notable. Google searches turned up nothing substantial enough to fulfill notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 15 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, v/r - T P 14:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG this has been listed for a while and the only source given is its own website. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 27 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?} 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Jackson (character)[edit]

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

Although the actor who portrayed the character is notable there is insufficient third person information about the character to justify an article therefore I nominate this article for deletion. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arnold_Jackson_(character), although it would also be possible to merge this into a character list. In no sense is deletion an appropriate outcome for a major character from a long-running, notable television series. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above well known character from long running show.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- It may be a well know character but there is third person info to WP:VERIFY and show it is notable and stating that a character WP:NOTABLE is not a valid argument to keep this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:44, 19 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Drummond (character) (Willis, Arnold, Dad, and Kimberly have all been sent to AfD).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to whether an article should be kept or deleted is not a valid argument. It is also irrelevant whether the character was part of a popular or short lived television. The question is there verifiable independent information which discusses in depth about the character. Also the characters you used in argument Milowent,Alex P. Keaton,Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati),Bailey Quarters and Gilligan (Gilligan's Island) in all the instances viable third person information has been found discussing each character article in depth. You have so far failed to produce one reliable source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid.

I have responded to this misguided comment in the Kimberly AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JClemens. Reasonable belief that this article has WP:POTENTIAL if we give people time to look for print sources. Again, we can do another AFD later if we're wrong. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 28 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?} 17:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Jackson (character)[edit]

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

Although the actor who portrayed the character is notable there is insufficient third person information about the character to justify an article therefore I nominate this article for deletion. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character is adequately covered in a number of books. Online references will be scant, as the entirety of Diff'rent Strokes happened before the Internet, but the article can certainly be expanded to include appropriate references to the ongoing cultural impact. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above well known character from long running show.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be a well know character but there is no third person info to WP:VERIFY and show it is notable and stating that a character WP:NOTABLE is not a valid argument to keep this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dwaynewest's reasoning. Additionally, the amount of information in the article is relatively small and could all be folded into the main article about the show. This seems more appropriate as a part of the show article. Ithizar (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Drummond (character).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to whether an article should be kept or deleted is not a valid argument. It is also irrelevant whether the character was part of a popular or short lived television. The question is there verifiable independent information which discusses in depth about the character. Also the characters you used in argument Milowent,Alex P. Keaton,Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati),Bailey Quarters and Gilligan (Gilligan's Island) in all the instances viable third person information has been found discussing each character article in depth. You have so far failed to produce one reliable source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid.Dwanyewest (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this misguided comment in the Kimberly AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JClemens. Sufficiently satisfied that this article has WP:POTENTIAL if you look at print sources instead of online sources. Can nominate again later if we're wrong. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:40, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Jaycees Nagar Society[edit]

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

I cannot find RS coverage on gnews or gbooks regarding this 76-houses-at-inception "residential society", and it does not otherwise appear to pass our notability requirements. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unnotable, zero news coverage and no significant mention in books or scholar either. X.One ^SOS 05:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not world-notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:39, 23 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 very close to a no consensus, its probably easier to just take that option. This needs a resolution WP:Aircrash is clear on military accidents and light aircraft for that matter as the frequency of events is significantly higher than for commercial operators, other factors can influence the end result. I considered WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE as well as the amount of editing done to the article during the afd. Persistance inpart says Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article besides coverage of the event only one source is available that was written well after the event. That source is use to cite that a Romanian on the helicopter is being treated as if he was serving in the IDF with his family recieving a pension and that a memorial is to be created, but its one source and its an Isreali newsource which doesnt address a non local scope of coverage. I also considered the fact that the training was supened for 12 months but thats standard practice after most military accidents of any size while cause is established. Additionally due to the similarities of events I considered Special_Air_Service_Regiment_(Australia)#Blackhawk_tragedy as a guide. While this has been closed as delete restoration to user space to enable inclusion of material into the appropriate IDF is a reasonable request. Gnan garra 03:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Israeli helicopter disaster in Romania[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Aircrash for military crashes William 12:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event was extensively covered in Romanian, Israeli and international media. Marokwitz (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for Military air crashes says-

the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or

The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

Don't see any proof this accident meets either one.- William 13:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very extensive coverage in international press, not only in Israel and Romania, but worldwide. While the non-guideline WP:Aircrash might be helpful sometimes, it is subject to the actual guideline WP:GNG in which this topic easily passes. Under the current state of WP:Aircrash, 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash wouldn't technically pass it. Clearly WP:aircrash has a long way to go before it's considered to the standard to decide aviation article inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oakshade. Poliocretes (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seven deaths and extensively covered by the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see that the GNG is met here. Yes, there was an intial explosion of news stories - as would be expected; however WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is the qualifier here. With the exception of a note in the Jerusalem Post article when training resumed a year later, all coverage was at the time of the crash; there is no evidence of WP:PERSISTENCE. It was a tragic accident, yes, but not worthy of a stand-alone article. It would, however, be worthy of note in Israeli Air Force and/or Israel–Romania relations. Also, if kept, this needs renaming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is easily met here with - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - The independent coverage is very significant. What you're talking about is the sub-clause WP:NOT#NEWS in WP:EVENTS that applies to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Obviously the coverage here is not routine coverage on things like "announcements, sports, or celebrities." That WP:PERSISTENCE is a mere suggestion and in no manner a requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is not routine coverage. Furthermore this event has impact on international military relations between the countries. It is not an event of merely local significance. Marokwitz (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per reasoning given by Bushranger. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, per Bushranger and per WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS, as it states, applies to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." A horrible accident that in which many people were killed is not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities.--Oakshade (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective quoting from WP:NOTNEWS really doesn't help your case - it states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events [emphasis added]. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This was a newsworthy event that's not been of lasting significance (except, of course, to the families and friends of the people killed in the crash), so WP:NOTNEWS does apply here in my view. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually playing the "selective quoting" card. I'm fine with you quoting the rest of WP:NOT#NEWS, but you only quoted the first sentences. It actually goes on to say WP:NOT#NEWS applies to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which of course this topic is none of. --Oakshade (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of any notability just one of many non-notable fatal military accidents that happen each year. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Persistency matters. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Keep" votes citing the amount of coverage are ignoring the necessary WP:NOTNEWS rider to WP:GNG. WP:EVENT does ask for persistence of coverage and/or lasting effects (and also incidentally states that geographical scope of coverage is not sufficient - which makes sense, since lots of things get short-term international coverage in Our Global Age but ultimately fade into oblivion). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Roscelese and other delete votes. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Oakshade, WP:GNG - significant coverage in independent reliable sources.—Biosketch (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bushranger. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oakshade's comments. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per meeting GNG, regardless of whether WP:Aircrash is satisfied. WP:persistence and WP:notnewspaper are things to be considered but are not dispositive merely by citation, those concepts clear out some fluff but not well-covered multiple-death accidents like this one, though perhaps they have some application to the innumerable articles like TAROM Flight 3107.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. IMHO, this tragedy only meets two standards of the EVENT criteria (Depth and diversity). I agree with User:The Bushranger that WP:PERSISTENCE is the missing component. Failing persistence, NOTNEWSPAPER applies. BusterD (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article has been expanded significantly since the original proposal. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:14, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akapo Emmanuel[edit]

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

article fails to establish notability - all references in the article are from self-published or unreliable sources - article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC - article has a strong promotional tone. Amsaim (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 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?} 15:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick web search showed no independent sources to establish notability. Nothing in news, books or scholar for "Akapo Emmanuel" or "Emmanuel Akapo". Possibly Tenstrings Music Institute should also be deleted for the same reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:49, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. The only source in the article that looks somewhat reliable and independent is the Entertainment Express piece (despite the "blog" in the url, it appears to be a local newspaper) but it's short and most of the content consists of Emmanuel talking about himself, something that WP:MUSIC explicitly disallows as counting for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 23 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Carver[edit]

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

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

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

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

Lack of notability. Lack of neutral pov -DjD- (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep. She is famous in Germany. She fulfills the notability guidelines as she was featured more than five times in German tv and also many times in German newspapers. Her popularity has drawn the attention of a famous tv channel with whom she signed an exclusivity contract. I added all this information along with some link for you to see.

As for the lack of neutrality, all the changes made by the user who claims to be her manager have been undone.--Drakonov (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)--Drakonov (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)— Drakonov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete 100%. As per nom, and as per my talk page post. The page is nearly completely created by her agent or someone close to her. She's hardly successful and being a model with big boobs isn't enough in my opinion to have a Wikipedia article. It's a heavily biased, pointless autobiography. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is featured on a recent episode of TMZ on TV. This increases her notability and lends credence to the notion that her fame is rising internationally. http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/20/german-model-jordan-carver-video-tmz-on-tv/#.Txm32qVSRDs 71.173.138.58 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)— 71.173.138.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Other than being pushed by Bild, this person is a nobody, and the article has verifiably been created by her handlers. --Kar98 (talk) 04:45, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article and this discussion prove little to the effect that this person meets WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 22 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wisetrack[edit]

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

notability? Steinhfer (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close – The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. AfD is not cleanup. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the deletion reason specified - lack of notability - seems to apply. Though I didn't try hard, my search revealed nothing indicating potential success. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:51, 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?} 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just seems to be one company in a field, and the article contains neither references nor evidence of their notability. That said, they have been used as an example in some scaremonging about RFID tracking, but being one example among others doesn't seem strong enough in itself to indicate persistent notability. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 14 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found, no claim or indication of notability in the article. It's a shame that this AfD has taken up more effort from editors than was put into writing the article. I don't see any point dragging this out for any longer.--Michig (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Aphlatoon[edit]

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

This DJ/remix producer is not known by gnews and gbooks, and appears to be non-notable per wp notability requirements that he be the subject of substantial rs coverage. The article has zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no reference to this indiviual - not notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:26, 15 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 25 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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Easwar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic_criteria. The sources (provided in the article) do not, in any way, substantially deal with the subject of the article. The sources are details of difference of opinion between the then Govt. of Kerala and Shabarimala Temple priests. The subject of the article is mentioned as the spokesperson of the Priest family. Suspected promotion. Wikieditindia (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the above comment here as we open new AFDs rather than reopen old ones. As far as the article is concerned I have no opinion. I'm merely moving things from the earlier AFD in order to put things into our normal process. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Sources are not about him.North8000 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Despite WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, the coverage of this subject is largely 1) about his arrest amid government tensions with religious leaders, and 2) incidental coverage as spokesperson. The arrest does not merit a WP:BLP1E. Mention of this subject would probably belong in an article about the wider public controversy between religious and government officials, but himself does not garner WP:BASIC notability. ~~Note: this article was re-created after a previous deletion.~~ JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion was in 2005, all the cites are more recent than that so in my view a G4 deletion would be inappropriate. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. I'll go ahead and strike my comment since this incarnation ostensibly reflects later developments. JFHJr (㊟) 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Trebek says "right you are" (haven't heard the phrase anywhere else until now). How much did WSC bet on this clue?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Right you are" is a pretty standard colloquial phrase in British English; I use it all the time myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)</ref>[reply]

I'll add it to my ever-growing list of British words, phrases, etc. I've learned since being on Wikipedia. Maybe Trebek uses it because he's Canadian.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He isn't the subject of any of the sources supplied in the article, and I can't find anything on google. In fact, I'm struggling to see any credible assertion of importance in the article itself; I may well have been tempted to speedy this under WP:A7 if I'd come across it first. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I had pointed out on the discussion page in 2008, the article seems to have been blatantly misused for self promotion. Nitinsunny 09:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both general and specific criteria Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject has a speech given at a TEDx forum at SRM University, Chennai. http://www.collegefallout.com/tedxsrm-concludes-successfully-at-srm-university/ video -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...so? I've given speeches at a university; doesn't make me notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well..... i dont particularly care abt this guy. Just wanted to let everyone know that he was invited by TEDx. (I dont know what criteria they have to invite ppl. But someone can check that.) Apart from that the guy is seen as anchor to some chat-show. video. I dont understand Malayalam nor do i know anything about this show on Kairali TV. Is it a regular show? In that case the article, even if stub, can exist. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:14, 27 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. Michig (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Casson[edit]

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

YouTube filmmaker of questionable notability. Previously speedy deleted. Completely referenced to primary sources, no independent sources provided. Google news search on "Drew Casson" "YouTube" shows no results. Standard search shows a lot of YouTube, primary sources, and social media, but I have found no significant coverage or mentions from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 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?} 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No references even near-suitable for establishing wp:notability. Contents looks like a personal blog/ essay written by the subject of the article or a close friend. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and North8000's arguments. A search brought up nothing that would show notability per Wikipedia guidelines and even if it did, the page itself is in such a terrible state that it would require an almost complete rewrite to be encyclopedic.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Obvioulsy an Autobiographycal case, that isn't good for wikipedia, inmediatly delete. Thundersport (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 25 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. Michig (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Foskett[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Child actress whose career basically consists of appearing in two episodes of a BBC series. So it's no surprise that there's a dearth of significant coverage about her. Pichpich (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 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?} 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting the notability requirements of WP:NACTOR. There are several reasons why we should be very cautious in permitting a BLP of a child or young person; in this case she falls well short. --AJHingston (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources to show that this actress is notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:25, 24 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 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration Logging Company[edit]

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

No notability found for this company - Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably need to search using the contracted name Exlog - plenty of sources then - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Mikenorton (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News is routine news coverage, trivial mentions, and press releases. Google Books has one source that was published by someone from the company. Google Scholar has 4 citations with two of them from the staff. The other two might be as well. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least there were some sources, but I take your point about there being not too much coverage - note also that the company disappeared in to the Baker-Hughes monolith in 1987, too soon to be picked up by a lot of online sources. However, guidelines are guidelines. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 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?} 10:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No indication of wp:notability, no references. Due to the nature of their work (which would make an interesting article if expanded) , and the possibility of being able to meet wp:notability, I would probably say leave it in as a stub to see where it goes. However, this article has had no real editing for at least 3 1/2 years. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. It's part of INTEQ, in turn a subsidiary of Baker Hughes, so just add some info there. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Baker Hughes INTEQ. No sourcing to verify, and since INTEQ is so spare, better this should be part of the history of that company's page. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 31 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 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Angels Commit[edit]

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

Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy. May be appropriate to redirect to the season, which may be notable or more notable. Curb Chain (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 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?} 10:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (did only a quick review) No indication of wp:notability as a separate episode. It's just a plot summary of one episode with general series info (series actors) repeated Zero references. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 22 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 no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ilga Kļaviņa[edit]

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

This chess player does not seem notable enough. She did not win a Latvian championship, she does not hold the title of grandmaster. SyG (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is related to the article "Latvian Chess Championship", the chess player associated with the victory of Latvian chess championship or additional match for champion title. Please leave this article, because otherwise the article "Latvian Chess Championship" will be a link without the article. Ilga Kļaviņa lost additional match for Latvian chess champion title in 1968. She played fro Latvia in Soviet team chess championships.--Uldis s (talk) 08:43, 9 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?} 12:24, 15 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?} 10:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No indication of wp:notability, The sources are not coverage of her. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 22 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. Michig (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Mic Trevor[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:N. The person is a street crooner. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 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?} 12:17, 15 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?} 10:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. There is a note in the article talk page outlining why the editor believes WP:MUSICBIO is met, however, minor mentions and local airplay do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source mentionsCurb Chain (talk) 12:07, 28 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 no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Yan (singer)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer to meet our notability requirements. Others are welcome to try. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 8 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?} 12:14, 15 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?} 10:24, 22 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 no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avazhikkarai..[edit]

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

Dear Admin, links provided does not list the place as village. One link is not in english language and hence it cannot be established if the name is actually village. Please review. Thanks AKS (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 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?} 12:13, 15 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?} 10:22, 22 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 List of All My Children characters. And delete first. Sandstein 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cudahy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fictional men of All My Children, volume 2

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

This article is nominated the 2nd time; this time, I have search this character in Google News and Google Books. The only significant storylines he had were his relationships with Erica Kane and Brooke English. At least he had other significant storylines, such as losing his and Brooke's daughter, battling racism, and relapsing alcohol. Unfortunately, I still could not find any sources that significantly cover him with NO relations with Erica Kane (or Brooke English).

And I cannot propose WP:ATD at this time: redirecting him to "Erica Kane" may neglect how significant he was in the show, the primary source (not counting non-primary sources, I'm afraid), and redirecting him to "Brooke English" may be the same as to "Erica Kane". List of All My Children characters may have an abstract of this character; it is very brief and unreferenced. Richard Shoberg portrayed him for long; both are different people, but someone may favor redirecting to there as "inter-twined". Nevertheless, I'm not favoring either a merge or redirect.

Don't tell me that offline sources are possible; I already know that. These sources are disposable and not circulated in libraries, except some which is small amount and obscure. ~~George Ho (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

In other words, this character may fail general notability guidelines if he is not significantly covered in sources that do not cover Erica Kane, Richard Shoberg, or Brooke English. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 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?} 12:13, 15 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?} 10:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no evidence of notability, no real-world treatment. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of All My Children characters Very long-running character, so plausible search term. PWilkinson (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources can be found that would WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as PWilkinson recommends. No sources directly covering the character have been presented or located. A reasonable search turns up nothing directly detailing AND meeting WP:IRS. BusterD (talk) 16:43, 31 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 Gnan garra 03:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron J. Albano[edit]

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

Singer/actor lacking significant credits and notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 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?} 12:09, 15 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?} 10:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ENT. He has appeared in some productions, but all appear to be minor roles, refer to http://broadwayworld.com/people/Aaron_J._Albano/. Gsingh (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT. Multiple news sources report subject is in the ensemble for the Broadway musical Newsies which started previews last night, so one day this promising fellow may indeed be notable. Today, not. BusterD (talk) 16:38, 31 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?} 17:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Bill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a longstanding stub, more than seven years with only two refs: one that leads nowhere (and looks as if it previously led to a non-WP:RS "source", archived here), and the other that leads—shock, surprise, etc.—to a defunct page on a commercial site, the front page of which appears to be the verbatim source for the text of the article. So not only does it flunk SOAP and PEOPLE, but also COPYVIO. Previous AFD discussion from 2006 looks like a pathetic joke; go see it and take note the article has not changed substantially since then. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't say I care enough to work on the article, but the subject appears to be somewhat notable among pot smokers: [35][36]. Location (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our rules require subjects to be notable according to our standards. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the lack of a pot-smokers subsection in WP:BIO, he appears to weakly pass WP:GNG. Location (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No canvassing, please. Location (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No unwarranted scolding, please. I asked someone to take a look, and he did. Read the policy before poking someone with it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:06, 15 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?} 10:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Appears to just meet GNG, per:

"RIP Eagle Bill". High Times Magazine. May 24, 2005. Retrieved January 23, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Preston, Brian (2002). Pot planet: adventures in global marijuana culture. New York: Grove Press. p. 161. ISBN 2126147916. Retrieved January 2012. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:48, 23 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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Coronato[edit]

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

Biographical article (possibly WP:COI) about a moderately successful artist. His only claim to notability is winning one local award and being featured in a few local magazines. Completely fails to meet the criteria of WP:ARTIST and probably not even WP:GNG. Lacks reliable sources too. andy (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging by a Google Books search, the subject seems to have had artwork used in a several publications. A general search turns up quite a few references to his artwork although little in depth about the man himself, indicating the biography is primarily WP:OR or adapted from the subject's website (i.e. primary source). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an unsourced BLP, yes? Carrite (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is gonna pass GNG. I'll get a quick footnote or three in there. Carrite (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 15 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?} 10:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a fairly notable western artist. While the article needs an overhaul, this article should stay. He has a decent AskArt bio. Some other resources: American Cowboy Magazine, Bozeman Magpie, he participated in the Autry's Master's of American West art auction, which is one of the most important western art auctions in the world, Cowboy Poetry, which is a notable website in the Cowboy Poetry movement, Artists Network article. SarahStierch (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant person, article good created Thundersport (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that doesn't answer the issue of notability. I've looked at your recent contributions to AfD discussions and I'm not sure that, as a newcomer to wikipedia, you fully understand the process. It's not enough to say that you like or dislike an article, you need to address the reasons for the proposed deletion. andy (talk) 09:55, 26 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 List of extreme weather events. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weather in 2006[edit]

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

One of only 4 "Weather by year" articles (I am bundling the others in this nomination). Lot of unsourced material that has been tagged for years. WP is not a weather service. At best we can merge selected items into List of extreme weather events. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Redirect All to List of extreme weather events. The material is not sourced on the page itself, but it appears to be a summary of main articles that are sourced. My biggest complaint is the title doesn't really suggest what is actually is (a summary of notable weather events - which isn't WP:WEATHER) and I find it unlikely that somebody will search Wikipedia for "weather in 2006", as opposed to a specific weather event in one of the linked articles. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are also sections with "predictions" like you can see in the 2007 article. Multiple issues with most of them. I agree that the names are poor. If kept they could be renamed to "Extreme weather events in 2006" or something like that. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 15 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?} 10:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect all per above. This kind of looks like a huge mess and something should be done to try to standardize all this. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) agree fully with nominator's rationale – article prone to WP:OR Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:09, 29 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 Gnan garra 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown High School[edit]

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

I am aware that we normally don't delete articles about high schools, but I am submitting this request based on information provided by someone who identified herself as a representative of the school who said that the article was inaccurate. From what I can find, there was an Uptown High School in Dubai until the end of the 2010-11 school year, but not at the location stated in the article. The same organization that ran that school (known as Taaleem Schools) plans to open a new school, called Uptown School (with no "high" in the name) at that location (Mirdif) in the fall of 2012, but the high school division of that school will not open until some time 2014. This is based on information at http://www.uptownhigh.ae/ and http://www.taaleem.ae/ourschools/uptown-school.html. I would be fine with this article being deleted, but I don't expect that to be the outcome of this AfD -- however, if the article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite to indicate that the school no longer exists under this name, and if it is moved, it needs to indicate that the school doesn't exist yet. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a respectful request for the nominator to completely re-write the article just as the nominator has so wisely recommended. The nominator, after all, is now the resident expert on this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it can be confirmed that the high school is up and running. As of now, there is nothing to base an article on except future plans. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 15 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?} 10:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An inability to verify existence is a valid reason to delete a high school article. Also, its a one sentence stub so the cost of deletion of minimal.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. Specifically, "New high schools, ... and the like are not inherently notable, in my humble opinion." Bearian (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and WP:ORG. No sources, no verification. No prejudice against recreation when RS can be located and applied. BusterD (talk) 16:27, 31 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 while apparent numbers favour keep, this is one case where arguments put forth for deletion are significantly more substantive. Gnan garra 04:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

after 5 deleton two via AFD I salted the article it'll require a review of new sources at WP:DRV before recreation Gnan garra 04:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Coy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing is problematic, notability is questionable. This seems to be more of a marketing tool than a biographical account of somebody with encyclopedic relevance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources:

Peterman, Mindy. "Music Review: Chase Coy - Picturesque". Seattle pi. Retrieved 15 February 2011.
Maurer, Mark (May 28, 2010). "Chase Coy appearing at Maxwell's Tuesday". Nj.com. Retrieved January 07, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Fails #1 with only a single non-trivial reference (Seattle review) NJ.com ref is a trivial newspaper entertainment calendar entry. While this artist is signed to a major label, still does not meet #5 as only 1 album has been released on that major label, others were independently released. Possible G3 candidate as it was previously deleted through AFD, and admin would need to compare the versions to see if there has been significant improvement since then. RadioFan (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: "Chase Coy making major label debut" from The Waterfront Journal, "Chase Coy brings boyish good looks, adult-sized talent to Bluebird Theater" from Wyoming Tribune Eagle, "Tour gets Coy out of house" from The Daily Progress, "Chase Coy, 'Picturesque'" from Billboard (brief mention), and "Signing Stories: Chase Coy" from Music Connection. These sources are unquestionably significant, with the exception of the Billboard one. However, I am unsure as to whether they establish notability because many refer to Coy's imminent visit to the town—this would reduce Coy to local interest. The Waterfront Journal article and the Music Connection article are the two significant sources that are free from any mention of any forthcoming visit—is this enough? I welcome comment from other editors about this. Goodvac (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All told, the sources found count as notable. Dream Focus 22:21, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Sources provided establish only limited local notability. Google searches did not turn up anything more substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The sources I provided above are from major news outlets, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and NJ.com. This coverage is from opposite sides of the continent. How do these sources provide "only limited local notability?" The person has been recognized in major mass media publications in the United States. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle review starts out:

"At nineteen, Chase Coy shows a good deal of potential to one day become a top-notch singer-songwriter."

Which means that he is not yet notable enough to warrant his own article. Maybe some day, but not now, per WP:TOOSOON. Also, one sparrow does not a spring make. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP does not require that a singer should be a "top-notch singer"... otherwise we had less than a hundred of articles in that category. Cavarrone (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recently sources added say that he is notable. Thundersport (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??? Only one source has been added since September, and that's a local newspaper supplement ("Hudson County Entertainment News"). I don't see anything in there that establishes notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources provided by Northamerica1000 and Goodvac. Clearly passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I'm not quite sure it is understood what qualifies as a reliable source. The article contains three references:

The Seattle Pi reference [37] originally comes from a blogger at Blogcritics, who will let basically anyone write for them [38]. In all likelihood, not a reliable source.
The "interview" with something called Indie Rock Reviews [39] is a prefabricated questionnaire. Also not a reliable source.
The NJ.com reference [40] is a trivial mention in a local entertainment news website in order to plug an upcoming show.

This is yet another article about one of roughly five quintillion rising up-and-coming music sensations. It has garbage posing as references. Make it go away, please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:BLP as WP:TOOSOON. None of the sources provided by users Northamerica1000 or Goodvac rise to the level which meets WP:IRS, though some shirt-tail onto RS as pointed out by Bongwarrior immediately above. Based on a reasonable search for sources, subject meets no section of WP:MUSICBIO or even WP:GNG. All coverage is either local or blog-derived. Page creator has some connection to the subject, according to his Google+ circle, so this is likely WP:PROMOTION. Closer should take into account keep !voter new User:Thundersport has been blocked for ignoring deletion consensus on a promotional page. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 31 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Addeo[edit]

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

not notable Genb2004 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doubtless an accomplished musician but no attention beyond limited local coverage. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:39, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:26, 15 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?} 09:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand why an "independent" artist on a label that she owns is notable. Hummer190 (talk) 07:18, 24 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. Consensus is that the local coverage found is insufficient to establish notability.Michig (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Turnbull[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject is nowhere near notable enough.

By chess strength, he is not even close to GM, the standard for having an article written about him. In fact, he never attained the IM title, and has no FIDE titles at all. His rating is in the 2300s, but that's merely National Master, not even Senior Master or FIDE Master (both well below IM) strength.
Now, the second argument is that he's a cool human interest story. I don't see him as achieving much fame in this arena, either. I know a great deal of New England chess masters through friends, and most importantly, their award-winning publication "Chess Horizons". Even when they SPECIFICALLY covered street blitz players on Harvard Square, Murray Turnbull was rarely mentioned. When is the last time he had a game published or a feature in the national publication Chess Life? Did he ever get one? The only mention of him in "Chess Life", based on his Profile, is a "Yearbook" summary of past champions, where his name appears in 8 point font in a back page alongside a few hundred other names. (Virtually none of whom have their own pages on here, either)
There are a great deal of street blitz players of master strength in San Francisco, New York, and Harvard Square. I can list a bunch of them if anyone cares. Do any of them have pages except Murray Turnbull? No.

I can go on and on if anyone seriously believes he meets any notability criteria. I don't believe he does, for the reasons cited above, as well as others. Delete ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets general notability (WP:GNG) with this,this and this. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ReplySunCreator, can you elaborate on your links? Okay, Turnbull appeared in a brief Harvard Gazette snippet in 2001, a longer feature in the Harvard Crimson in 2004, as well as the personal webpage of a Harvard undergrad back in 2000. Unless you can provide reasons otherwise, I believe the third link can be safely ignored as irrelevant. As for the first two, are a couple of articles in small newspapers with limited, regional distribution really that big of a deal? (Even if they are associated with a very famous university) Look, I've seen big features in much larger, local newspapers about chessplayers who weren't even close to national master strength, sometimes even 1,000 Elo points below the level of Grandmaster, which is the general notability standard. For instance, here is a news story involving chess players "Eugene Varshavsky" and "Steven Rosenberg" that appeared in major national newspaper like the New York Times, San Jose Mercury News, and ABC News. Pretty sure this major national coverage exceeds a couple of articles in local Harvard University papers by many orders of magnitude. And yet, we don't have pages on either chessplayer, as the story isn't quite notable enough by itself. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by whether reliable sources gives significant coverage of the subject. The sources supplied above are reliable, significant and independent of the subject. Strength of chess is only an indication to be used in absence of general notability. After all, many activities such as photography, have no criteria like a chess rating that could indicate notability without looking to sources. So a photographer with such sources would be notable but a chess player would not? No, a correct understanding of WP:GNG shows this is a minimium standard that enables notability regardless of the subject matter. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As stated in the WP:GNG (which, it's important to note, are only general requirements)you linked to, one is expected to have multiple sources going into "significant coverage" of the subject in question. So far, only one source you cited above satisfies that requirement, a piece in the regional Harvard Crimson publication back in 2004. Furthermore, you kind of ignored my concern. By what you wrote, I come to the conclusion that "Eugene Varshavsky" deserves a Wikipedia page too, since multiple, highly visible national news sources went into "significant coverage" of his performance at the 2006 World Open. Yet, if we did that, we would probably have pages for tens of thousands of minor masters and even USCF-rated experts. It would completely overwhelm the articles (many of them stubs or Start-Class!) we have of actual top 100 GMs.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SunCreator Sasata (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In retrospect, I agree that the Harvard publications are too regional to support notability. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:BIO. Harvard publications do not demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the above, the article subject is not well known internationally, does not meet the popular minimum GM (or IM with sideline) requirement - nor does he have an Elo rating. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a GM (or IM with sideline) is not and should not be a minimium requirement for chess players. That is a misreading of WP:GNG. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:29, 27 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. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian Libyan glyphs[edit]

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

Apparent fringe theory, presenting aerial photographs of structures in the Egyptian-Libyan desert, which to me at least look very much like remnants of WWII earthworks, as if they were "petroglyphs" from an unknown prehistoric civilization. No sourcing except to the editor's own blog, from which the article is copy-pasted in its entirety. Looks thoroughly crackpot (or hoax) to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow, the most perfect example of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks I've ever seen. I just love how he chooses to name British-defended Tobruk (yeah, the Desert Rats and all that) "Tubruq" to make it sound more exotic, and then highlights a ring of defensive gun emplacements as petrogloodles. I thought "petro" meant "rock" but I guess sand dug by the Eighth Army counts as a rock to a geologist. Seriously, this is absurd, without a shred of argument or evidence (forget RS) in its favour, and the most glaring evidence against it. One for the hall of fame of most ridiculous fringe theories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as pure and utter nonsense. My favourite part is the claim that the people who built these also built the pyramids, 1000 years after they were already built. They're obviously a pretty advanced society if they managed to build something that was already there. Ravendrop 12:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unsourceable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 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. Poor rationale for deletion which has not been expanded upon, and which nobody else in the discussion agrees with. Consensus is to keep. Michig (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 applications[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a list Bihco (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LIST. Applications on the Xbox 360 are a vital component of the user interface and there are over 40 million people that use these applications. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What does "Wikipedia is not a list" mean? Please elaborate on your nomination reason and perhaps cite the specific policies/etc it violates. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of articles in Wikipedia also look like a list, why don't you give those articles a deletion warning? If you want to delete this article, please delete all articles in Wikipedia that look like a list first. Also, this article can tell people that what apps will release in the future. Humphreyyue 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for both the instructions on lists cleanup and the reasons why being a list is not a sufficient reason for deletion see WP:SAL. Being a list doesn't make page invalid. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:41, 24 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. (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Geet (TV series)). If you think that article should be deleted please start a separate AfD for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geet..Hui Sabse Parayi[edit]

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

This article on the short-lived Indian Soap Opera, "Geet..Hui Sabse Parayi" has no sources whatsover ~ and is all original research. No notability either. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the article the show had 1 season with 470 episodes. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That's what many soap opera's have throughout a year. Soaps such as Neighbours is the same as this article ~ except the Neighbours article has the sources to corroborate the information, and has been running for over 25 years. This soap ran for just over a year - no sources to verify that, either. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? More than one episode per day? Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This particular soap lasted for over a year (April 2010 ~ December 2011). One episode per day, not even. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - So doesn't that make it 2 seasons? Or at least 1 full season and one partial season before it was cancelled?Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm unfamilliar with how seasons work in India. However, 1 or even 2 seasons, doesn't make it notable. I'll clarify, Notability isn't the core issue here, it's the fact that it is all original research. There could have been 50 seasons, thousands upon thousands of episodes, but what does that matter, if there are no sources that confirm that? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I'm not trying to assert its notability. I just found that factoid peculiar. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 08:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you shouldn't try (only if you want to), really that should go to the article's creator to do that, to avoid this article being deleted. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:12, 22 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. Michig (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Faith[edit]

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

Was non-notable fanfilm in development, now a non-notable fanfilm which never was. No RS sources found. Editors have been trying to update the fact that the movie will not be produced, but sources are sketchy due to lack of notability in the first place. The official facebook page is fairly clear on the status [41] Cancellation announced on Halo noticeboards : [42] The film exists only as a trailer and poster. The Interior (Talk) 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Disagree that this was a non-notable fan film, however since the film has indeed been cancelled, the page should be blanked and re-directed to Halo (series)#Film. TurboGUY (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to show that this meets WP:FFILM. I found some buzz in the fan community, but not to where I think that it should be a redirect. The only things that pop up are primary sources, non-notable blog reviews of the poster and trailer, and sites that wouldn't be considered reliable sources per WP:RS. There's just not enough out there to show that this film really warrants a mention anywhere other than a fan site or fan wiki.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 23 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) 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fan film. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough sources out there to establish notability, article uses only primary sources. Яehevkor ✉ 18:34, 24 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 Larry Sabato. Michig (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy Half-Century[edit]

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

Non-notable unpublished book. My Gsearch for "the kennedy half-century" -facebook -wikipedia gave 42 hits, most of them junk. The book, of course, might wind up being notable eventually; according to this press release it is being written by well-known academic Larry Sabato. Is it is ironic that the author is known for his online newsletter Sabato's Crystal Ball, while this article flunks WP:CRYSTALBALL? Glenfarclas (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Larry Sabato until the book gets closer to its publication date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above, until covered by independent reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Jclemens.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 25 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. Michig (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinforosa Amador[edit]

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

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this woman "carried to Xalapa the cultural heritage of European Jesuit missionaries" because the article doesn't say, and none of the three references mention her. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To be kept, this article would need a lot more biographical content and sourcing compared to its genealogical content and even genetic content. (Why does this article discuss the subject's mitochondrial DNA?) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could be wrong, but this looks like an example of someone's genealogical research. Subject sounds as though she could be interesting, but nothing here establishes notability. Apparently she had mDNA. So has every other human being.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 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?} 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picnicface[edit]

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

They is another article named Picnicface (TV series) which should have the same info TBrandley (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 22. Snotbot t • c » 05:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although closely related, the comedy troupe itself and the TV series starring the comedy troupe are distinct and independently notable topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its iffy, but I think enough can be done to separate the group from the tv show so both merit an article. I note that Upright Citizens Brigade is currently one article for group and show, but the show could really be spun off from that. Tarc (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 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?} 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Letcher[edit]

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

seems to fail WP:Notability for musicians Mayumashu (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mail & Guardian piece cited in the article[43] makes it starkly obvious that this subject is WP:Notable. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a notable person, I don't know why added to the AfD... Thundersport (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 153 entries in Google News, [44]. Cavarrone (talk) 08:15, 27 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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot (Waterman)[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that meet WP:N Hobit (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article shouldn't be deleted. Its a Episode of Waterman (series), and Wikipedia should respect it enough to allow this page to stay up. Buddha Putra - Rahul (Talk) 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite. Why is the Waterman (series) notable? It is cited by two dead links. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being dead or not really doesn't matter. Nor does the current state of the article. But those links don't seem to be independent and I can't find any acceptable sources for this episode. I'll admit I couldn't find anything for the series either, but putting up an episode seemed safer in case I was missing some obvious sources (Waterman isn't the easiest word to search for). Hobit (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well I was trying to understand why User:Rahulmothiya thinks we should respect this page when the animated series itself doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Possibly User:Rahulmothiya can supply a reliable independent source because I haven't been able to find any. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage about this specific episode of a web series that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 03:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Waterman (series). Whether Waterman (series) should be deleted is a separate discussion unless the AfD is linked in, which it presently is not. Individual episode of an internet only series which does not seem to meet GNG certianly is not enough to keep. This does not mean this will not gain notability at some later point if Waterman becomes more successful. --Falcadore (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Waterman (series) already has a brief entry for this episode. There's no evidence of notability or prominence for this production and it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't have the sources to meet WP:GNG. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per RJHall. Mention at Waterman (series) is sufficient. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:24, 30 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. Michig (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty of Heroes[edit]

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

Not-yet-released game with no assertion of notability. (Was supposed to be release but no recent updates for release date) Seems like may not be created. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Falcadore (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be student project that was never completed. Notability is not established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 08:06, 22 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) 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources I could find, and the external links for the article, focused on the game's college, and gave the game itself a passive "it exists" type mentioning. With that sort of information, it seems like the college could support an article, but the game itself, cannot. Fails WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secure error messages in software systems[edit]

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

Essay-like how-to content which does not seem fixable by editing. Prod in 2006. Pnm (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't remember writing this content, which reads much too much like a how-to, but I think there's a notable topic worthy of documenting here (the interaction between error messages and security). Needs editing for tone, sources. Dcoetzee 03:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Computer security--CanvasHat 03:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. It reads like a section which has somehow got detached from its article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article consists of a jumble of suggestions (the label "design principles" is far too grandiose) that offer advice for the design of error messages. These suggestions do not have a clear common topic beyond their pertaining to error messages. While displaying common sense, they are rather trivial. If this is to be merged somewhere, something I don't recommend, it should become a new section in the article Error message with a title like "Design of error messages"; it does not really belong in Computer security. In any case, there is little point in leaving a redirect; the current title is not a plausible search term. --Lambiam 19:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content is very, very low quality. Topic is not. I suggest zapping the content and keeping 2 lines. History2007 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting it considering History's view. Good faith relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. – Pnm (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per nomination. I wish we could have better content in this area but that is probably as an additional section in existing articles. As it stands this article a little too essayish (or even OR), and I don't see that being fixed by regular editing any time soon, alas. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 25 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ManOpen[edit]

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

This dosen't seem like a notable piece of software, and I don't see it meeting the criteria at WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong keep: although there are some references^[1]^[2] and several mentions in the Google Books results (some with screenshots!), I was impressed that this software is listed on GNUstep's application wish list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dmitrij. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The second one isn't a source for ManOpen. The first is, but I'm still not seeing notability here. Everything in a computer is covered by at least one or two blogs. I also fail to see what GNUstep has to do with it. That would be like saying that a free to play online game was notable because it used Flash or Java. Notability is not inherited, especially not like that. Please tell me how this meets WP:NSOFT, because I'm still not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's wrong with a first ref? It seems a pretty reliable source with 21 years of service history. Second ref: I must have copied data from wrong article; I'll have a second attempt later. P.S.: What is the problem with WP:NSOFT compliance? This is probably the only graphical man viewer for OSX... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, here we go: some ISV-hosted anonymous review with editors notes (notability is implied with rating 6/5),^[3] some book (balancing on the edge of trivial mention),^[4] another book (AFAIK features a screenshot; behind the WP:PAYWALL).^[5] I think it may be worth asking WP:WikiProject Apple Inc. and someone with usage experience with NeXTSTEP, as it originated there and WP:LINKROT may have killed most of ever existed references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - About GNUstep relevance: the thing that matters here is that GNUstep is a long-term struggle to re-implement NeXTSTEP for Linux. Though notability of GNUstep in no way indicates the notability of ManOpen, the fact that this piece of software is included in the rather short list of software that has to be re-implemented (alongside web browser, word processing software, etc.) shows that NeXTSTEP people take this software pretty seriously (specifically given the fact that the amount of man page viewers for Linux is pretty significant). I think this should be regarded as an indication of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References:

^ Engst, Adam C. (2004-10-04). "ManOpen Opens Man Pages". TidBITS. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
^ ~~Santilli, Nick (2007-02-02). "Unix Tip: It's a Man, Man". GigaOM. Retrieved 2012-01-07.~~
^ "ManOpen 2.5". Rixstep. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
^ McElhearn, Kirk (2005). The MAC OS X command line: Unix under the hood. John Wiley & Sons. p. 49. ISBN 9780782143546.
^ Bell, Mark R.; Suggs, Debrah D. (2002). Mac OS X Version 10.1 Black Book. Coriolis. p. 521. ISBN 9781576106068.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 03:27, 22 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. Michig (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commipedia[edit]

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

I'm having difficulty finding any reliable sources for this; I can't seem to find anything that indicates (1) that the information here is true, or (2) that it ever went further than just a proposal. Fails WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted I cannot find anything related to Commipedia except a wiki for Marxism Jeff503 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an utterly non-notable idea discussed by no reliable, independent sources. There is a website but nobody reliable cares or says anything about it, as far as I can tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is apparently about a present or future web site with no link to that web site or anywhere where that web site is mentioned. Nothing here is verifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Defence[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NOT#NEWS; there's no evidence that this has any lasting coverage, or, indeed, even notability at the time. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that one of the "sources" provided was a blog written by the author of this article. Sigh. Ironholds (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable (though clever) phrase used in a political exchange about a year and a half ago by Ed Miliband. A commentator or two repeated it, but it received no significant coverage, and by now, has been pretty much forgotten. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's claim to notability rests on the last sentence about the phrase becoming widely used. Unfortunately there isn't a shred of evidence that this is the case. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a term to have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia, there needs to be widespread evidence of common use. As I found zero hits on GNews for articles containing both "Greek Defence" and "Liberal Democrats" I don't believe this is the case. Suspect the real motive of teh article ws to get this term in common use because Wikpedia says it is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The article has a link to this discussion, however, many people are not going to realize that as it appears as a redlink. I have never seen anything like that __meco (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above, coverage in reliable sources came to abrupt end after the Miliband stuff left the news cycle, making it one event stuff. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 23 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?} 17:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Gasification Company[edit]

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

Reason Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Looks like blatant publicity grab and advert. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article needs additional references and cleanup, but according to different search results it is notable. E.g., it is the first company in the U.S: to utilize the carbon capture and storage technology. One potential alternative for deletion may be merging into Basin Electric Power Cooperative, which is a parent of this company. Beagel (talk) 20:51, 9 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?} 12:34, 15 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) 01:33, 22 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 per WP:G12 -- a foundational copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Converter Studio[edit]

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

The only sources in the article are download pages. The so called review is a download page. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 15 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) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's another Promotional article. Get rid. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12) More to the point, it's a straight copy of the website you can download it from. Tagged for speedy deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:17, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easher caste[edit]

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

Zero refs. Tagged for that since September. Zero gbooks hits. Zero gnews hits. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for notability since September. Created by 1-article-edited-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 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?} 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look for sources, and I have to agree with the nominator that it's impossible to find any verifiable information this caste in English over the internet. It's not a scheduled caste (see [45]). Perhaps an editor who can speak Kashmiri might be able to find something ? There could be printed sources. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Falcadore (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom is right there is literally nothing out there. And nothing for "Easher" on it's own in this sense.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:35, 22 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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Alcock[edit]

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

Not notable and blatant advertising Soldierchoice (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The charity organisation might be notable, but the CEO isn't. Seems to have been created by a user called "Charliealcock" so we have conflict of interest issues before we get to gems like "Our motto is...". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after a move. This article should be sourced reliably, and the statements like Our motto is ‘whenever, wherever, whatever definitely need to be rephrased, but notability could be established for the charity, I'd guess. DCItalk 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Until we reach a decision on this, could we remove some of the tags present at the top of the article? Right now, a reader sees only tags when s/he opens the page, and three say a variation of the same thing - the article may violate Wikipedia policies, and must be wikified. DCItalk
  - One is about quality, one is about conflict of interest, one is about references. That's three different issues, and they are all justified. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Tigerboy1966. Totally WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:35, 30 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. Michig (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlon Gardner[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ATHLETE. Junior kart racers have always fallen a long way short of achieving standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Falcadore (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following related page is included in this nomination:

No opinion on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to have had a Proposal for Deletion back in 2008 which was removed. Can't see that any explanation was given. Nothing here that would pass as a reliable source. None of his wins were in notable events. I've seen better motor sport articles than this deleted. Of course I may end up looking silly when he wins the F1 championship in 2025. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notable or international achievements. Almost certainly a WP:CONFLICT too, written to promote the driver by their manager/PR/parent/sponsor. - mspete93 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the impression I got, but I didn't like to say. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what a self promotional article if i saw one. fails WP:ATH. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional articles, first is a BLP of a minor lacking independent sources, WP:SNOW would be good. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:53, 23 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.