< 22 January	24 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trilby Multimedia[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another multimedia and Internet publishing company advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:28, 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starstruck Media[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another multi-platform media company advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:28, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S2blue[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is apparently just another behind the scenes business advertising on Wikipedia, but this should be speedy deleted as patent nonsense because, after reading the article, I haven't the faintest idea what they make or do, though it seems to have something to do with advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:27, 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 speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Charlottesville[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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Delete or merge with Occupy Movement. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States, where it is already listed. Not enough coverage to merit stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to above list. No indication that a spinout is necessary here. RadioFan (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Article was deleted, apparently at the request of its creator.--JayJasper (talk) 20:18, 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 Snow Delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarraino theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research; Soapboxing. Previous AfD closed as CSD-G11, but I do not believe the current version fits G11 ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I made my argument in the first AfD 3 hours ago and nothing in the current version of the article leads me to believe that any part of that argument no longer applies. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soap boxing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete If it's not promotional, it's a hoax--a search on Yahoo yielded one hit, this article. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that indicates that this concept is notable. Wikipedia is not for promotion, and this is quite blatant promotion (as admitted by the author). That's most of why I deleted it as a G11 the first time around. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax, invented. Hairhorn (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete ~~Delete~~. I don't understand why we need an AfD discussion before we can delete such such patently obvious OR that exemplifies what Wikipedia is not for and doesn't stand a snowball's chance to survive. --Lambiam 12:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure either. Had I not deleted it the first time, I surely would've the second. But it is what it is. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe you can consider voting for Snowball delete? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, so !voted. --Lambiam 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like original research. Cardamon (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Poorly written original research, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability whatsoever. What about us atheists? --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete - This article is nothing but OR and it is certainly not notable. --Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 03:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:55, 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 speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Redfern[edit]

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

Dubious notability (author removed PROD): references do not appear to support subject's notability; seem to be about acupuncture in general rather than the subject in particular. Additionally, the subject may fail the criteria in WP:BIO. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 (I see we tagged it at the same time). Article only seeks to promote this person and his work. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think G11 really applies here, as the article as a whole is not fundamentally unencyclopedic. Nevertheless, I do believe that it should be deleted as violating WP:BIO. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is an academic who has brought a particular enzyme to popular attention, is there any change that could happen to make it more of an acceptable bio?? Ukhealthman (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not qualify for ((speedy)) deletion, as significance is asserted. But the enzyme itself, which is produced by bacteria and aids in the dissolution of sikworm coccoons in nature, has no proven efficacy in the medicine sphere. That being so, The person promoting it lacks notability.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:59, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CRIP Methodology[edit]

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

I cannot find multiple substantial RS coverage of this; others are welcome to try. Zero refs. Tagged for over 3 years for notability and lack of refs. Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable (I didn't see any sources on Google) dic def. Of the three sentences, one is an outright restatement, another is composed of totally unsupported claims about retrofitting, and the first is pretty much meaningless as far as I can tell. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Article is a meaningless string of glittering generalities. Whatever else can be said, nobody can be expected to make any sense out of this: The CRIP (Content, Relationships, Information, and Process) methodology for system architecture is defined as building enterprise solutions with a dynamic componentized architecture. It defines enterprise applications as being made up of Content, Relationships, Information, and Process. This allows for users to be able to retrofit solutions around their business needs without being reliant on information technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 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 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012#Candidates. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Wolfe, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate. Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Seemingly no coverage outside of local news media (and very scant at that) and blogs. JayJasper (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note the "John Wolfe, Jr." that appears in many of the items found in the Google searches is not the same person as the subject of this article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:55, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete & Redirect- Has not yet met WP:Politician. Infrequently listed at United States presidential election, 2012 (not currently listed due to edit warring, or maybe, finally consensus, or I'd say there). United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2010#District 3, perhaps, but Tennessee's 3rd congressional district#2010 election actually has a reference (currently #7) that provides the best context. Dru of Id (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I had to give the guy an article is that he's on the ballot in three primary states, and because he doesn't have one, he's thrown off the listings in the Democratic candidate list in the 2012 presidential primaries. He's more notable than some of the other people listed (Vermin Supreme) and if they had let me just give him a mention there, I'd have left it at thatEricl (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians or any other criteria. In response to Eric1, Vermin Supreme meets WP:CREATIVE. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The fact that the subject is a candidate in some of this year's Democratic primaries doesn't automatically make him notable enough for a separate article, but it does mean that he gets listed on each of the pages for those primaries (and rightly so - Wikipedia should definitely not be tampering with official candidate lists or election results just because we deem some of the candidates non-notable). And his candidacy does make his name a plausible search term for some readers. Ideally, Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012 would list all candidates taking part in one or more primaries, and the primaries each is taking part in - this article could then redirect to the relevant section. Unfortunately, current policy on that page seems to be to list all and any Wikipedia-notable people who have at any time speculated (or denied speculating) about standing in this year's primaries but exclude any candidate who does not meet our notability criteria, no matter for however many primaries they are on the ballot. Under these circumstances, as Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012#Candidates does seem willing to list all Democratic primary candidates, I suggest redirecting there. PWilkinson (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate list. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 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. Or at worst no consensus to delete. Consensus appears to be that Mr Dowbiggin is notable enough for inclusion. We normally give particular weight to deletion requests by article subjects only in cases of borderline notability (WP:DGFA#Biographies of living people). This is not such a case. Two "delete" opinions are unconvincing in the light of policy and have been given less weight in assessing consensus: that by Bermicourt, who appears to mistake the purpose of a deletion discussion, and that by NYyankees51, who does not identify the BLP problems he thinks are present here. Should there be such problems, this discussion does not show why they cannot be addressed by requesting administrative intervention. I have read the OTRS request, and it does not contain additional material relevant to this discussion. In particular, Mr Dowbiggin does not tell us what content he objects to for which reason. Any unblocks are not decided through this process, but through an ((Unblock)) request. Sandstein 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Dowbiggin[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, per OTRS ticket ticket:2011102510018627: The subject of this article has contacted Wikipedia by email and claims the article contains inaccuracies and would like it considered for deletion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point is that mr. Dowbigging is trying to sweep a few uncomfy but sourced things under the table. He used already a string of sockpuppets to achieve that, and now tries it by OTRS. How shall I say it: "An inconvenient truth". I am very unhappy about this attempt... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mr. Dowbiggin is clearly notable and should have used the talkpage to discuss the part he is unhappy with. This is gaming the system. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Contentious contents dealing with living people, moreover when based on dubious sources and disputed by the subject, should be aggresively removed. Any user, included the own subject, are invited to do so, per WP:BLP. The onus probandi lies on those who are attempting to publish those contentious contents and they should first discuss and provide reliable sources before publishing anything, meanwhile those contents should not be included at all but removed. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He clearly passes WP:PROF#C3 by virtue of the FRSC. The article needs some care per WP:BLP (e.g. is lifesitenews reliable for this topic?) but does not seem overly biased one way or the other to me, and even if it were I don't see a case being made that deletion is the only possible cure. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP. Actually, the ordinary procedures to deal with the so called "inaccuracies", have been clearly ineffective. Even it has been overlooked each recomendation to be patient with the people who claims to be affected with contentious contents, instead in this case the affected one, Dowbiggin, was promptly blocked accused of sockpuppetry and he was even entirely ignored, when he was clearly a non'wkipedian, not used with the wikipedia procedures but solely trying to warn about and to delete some contentious content against him. Contentious and surely false contents which finally were found to be unsourced and based on dubious sources[1]. Indeed contentious contents published by a real very disturbing sockpuppet (called User:Jabbsworth) who used 9-sockpuppets, who was recently blocked forever and who violated WP:BLP issues more than one time and the last time precisely so stubbornly attempted to circumvent the system by linking to an external link in order to publish some contents that the community found to be against the WP:BLP[2]. And it clearly seems that Dowbiggin was just one of his targets, whom the mentioned disturbing 9-sockpuppet attempted by all means to discredit due Dowbiggin's academic work and results are against his (of the mentioned disturbing 9-sockpuppet) agenda. Now, that Dowbiggin still raises again some concerns about the contents published about him, again it seems some wikipedians are still unable to seriously deal with them, but instead there have been raised here even more accusatory comments against the affected one, for example, accusing without any proof, that he is allegedely attempting to "sweep the truth." This is unacceptable. Per WP:BLP any contentious contents, like those raised by the subject, and based on dubious unreliable sources like in this case should be deleted, not responded with accusations and blocks. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note It seems Dowbiggin feels that contents dealing with his positions and opinions are not well represented in the article, so it is absurd to give confidence and more weight to some dubious sources and OR-phrases built by an expulsed 9-sockpuppet (with a proved lack of disposal to stick to the BLP policies[3]), than to the own subject explanations, when dealing precisely with his own opinions and positions, if you'll forgive the repetition. To add that I clearly found some of the sources are very wrong represented, included some prominent cherry picking, phrases out of context, and OR absurd conclusions. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't forget your own sockpuppets and your own topic ban for POV-pushing, mr. Santos. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What has it to do with the topic? -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That you come up with a rant against somebody else while you are operating on the fringe of your topic ban. And you don't have a clean slate about sockpuppetry yourself, so don't start accusing others. Watch out for the boomerang... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not accusing anybody, the 9-sockpuppeteer was indeed found as such and expulsed. The references to this 9-sockpuppet has entirely to do with the topic due this user is the author of the contentious contents which drove to past BLP concerns and to the current AfD. Similar BLP concerns raised a other times around the edits made by this 9-sockpuppeteer, thus a context pertinent to the current AfD dealing precisely with the same concerns. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article did not just have a few "inconvenient truths" - it seems to be quite clearly written with a POV against his positions, and thus needed noticeable pruning. I have tried to fairly represent his views without the internal argumentation which had been in the BLP, while not expunging criticism, and material which did not actually have biographical relevance, or which were adequately covered in fewer words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject's book list conclusively proves notability, for example his euthanasia book alone is held by ~1500 institutions. This discussion here is strictly about the notability of the subject and, consequently, the existence of the article. The complaints referred to above regard "merely" its content of the article and the interested eds should hopefully arrive at a version that is considered to be satisfactory and POV-free. Uncontroversial keep. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note AfDs are not the place for personal attacks of any sort. Meanwhile, my attempt at bringing the article into proper compliance with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV was reverted with the edit summary: Please use the talkpage first as these alterations are controversial. Collect (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lack of notability may be a common reason for bringing articles to AfD, but it's not the reason here; and in general a lack of notability is not the only reason why it might be better to delete an article than to keep it. I'm not a radical deletionist, but AfD is one of the cornerstones of quality control in en.wikipedia; reducing all AfD discussions to an assessment of only one attribute of an article, out of many possible attributes, is missing the point. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Which I hoped not to say, but it is clear that NPOV is not present in this article, and use of neutral wording is not supported there. Better to delete than face an uphill struggle to make it comport with policy. Collect (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't delete clearly notable people just because they don't wish to be discussed on Wikipedia. That's one privilege that's reserved for borderline-notable people. But this guy is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a clear WP:PROF #3 pass on its own, and additionally his books have been reviewed in scholarly journals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The attempt to refactor contentious dubious contents were responded with blocking the subject due a technicism. Now the affected subject does not have any privilege except asking for deletion. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being the subject of an article doesn't exempt one from Wikipedia policies. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to remove well-sourced information, just as anyone would have been. Looking at the edits, it seems that it's possible that the reason for the removal is that his views have changed, but that's not the right way to go about it; if that's the cause of the dispute, the information should be recast in past rather than present, preferably with a reliable source (SPS would be okay here) indicating a change of view, rather than removed entirely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WP:BLP encourages the wikipedians to be patience and do not bite those subjects who comes feeling affected with the contents published about them in wikipedia. Even -let me cite- "the Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material". Actually also WP:BLP encourages those subjects and other users to aggresively delete contentious contents bad or poorly sourced. And it seems that he did not removed well sourced information but even some of that information was finally removed due based on dubious or wrong interpretation of the source (for example about his alleged positions about gays, his alleged activism used in order to disqualify his academic work as allegedely biased, etc.), and I also could add that a lot of information in the article is still Original Research or UNDUE weighted by cherry picking (for example although his academic work as historian is recognized as objective by the sources, currently those sources are used to pick up isolated phrases of criticism), in order to misrepresent the subject. If the subject is still dispossed to express his concerns at any rate he is not able to edit wikipedia without violating the indefinite block that was applied to him, which is entirely contrary to Wikipedia:BLPEDIT#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article and finally drove to this AfD. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - PD: It should be noticed that all the controversial edits in Dowbiggin's article were made by the mentioned expulsed 9-sockpuppeteer (User:Jabbsworth) in order to misrepresent and discredit Dowbiggin's academic work as allegedelly biased and inaccurate (for example representing Dowbiggin as an alleged "biased"[4][5] through tagging him as a "catholic"[6][7][8] "conservative"[9], "anti-gay"[10][11][12] and "fringe" author, and even removing positive mentions on his work[13]), and it was evidently a grotesque attempt to discredit and to remove Dowbiggin as a reliable source in other articles where Dowbiggin was being used as a source[14]; for instance, see how this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article then removed contents in another article which was sourced on Dowbiggin's hitorical work, claiming precisely this: "remove grotesque over-reliance on one conservative Catholic euthanasia opponent for fringe opinions linking euthanasia to Darwinism and eugenics" (sic!)[15]. The intentions and shape of those edits are evident and did drive to the reasonable protest of the subject. If that sort of edits contrary to WP:BLP are not removed, and until now there has not been any disposal to do so but to punish the subject complaints, then the article should be removed as the subject is asking for. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 14:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Groan. I am leaning to say ~~Delete~~, given that this BLP was owned by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer who turned it into an attack piece. People above say that the biography seems quite neutral – well, it isn't. It may sound neutral, if all you know about the subject is based on reading our biography of him. And if that is the case, then you will think that Dowbiggin coined the term birth dearth – he didn't – and that in spite of a world population now at 7 billion, Dowbiggin is an idiot and a religious crank who thinks the world's population is in fatal decline (needless to say, not true either). I am prepared to change my mind if within a week this biography is turned around to something reflecting the man's actual standing in the scientific community, but if not, then it will remain ~~Delete~~. --J N 466 04:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Neutral. Given the history, and the undoubted distress we have caused the subject, I can't support a keep against the subject's wishes, but do want to acknowledge SilverSeren's effort to improve the article. --J N 466 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse Jayen's opinion, except I also have to notice the own Jayen's efforts to improve the article. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in general agreement with Collect, JN466 and ClaudioSantos. Dowbiggin is a respected historian, yet the article continues to provide a completely different view of him. He meets the technical requirements for having a biography, but at the same time the article itself is far too POV to be acceptable, focusing only on a small aspect of his work. If it could become balanced I'd be ok with that, and hopefully this will eventuate, but in lieu of this, deletion seems like the best way forward. Sometimes it is better to not have an article that to unfairly treat the subject. - Bilby (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just stupid. If there are issues with neutrality in the article, then fix it. It's not like the article is significantly long. Dowbiggin is clearly notable and I see absolutely no point in this discussion. Silverseren^C 06:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's gonna fix it? Who's gonna keep an eye on it afterwards? The number of biographies keeps going up, while the number of editors looking after them goes down. If we have too many to look after responsibly, we should reduce our workload. --J N 466 06:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting content is not the proper method of dealing with that. If necessary, fix the issues and then full protect the article, problem solved. Deleting articles just because you think we can't patrol them well enough is asinine and undoes the entire point of everything we do here. Silverseren^C 06:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is the point of what we are doing here? Hosting biographies of living people that are unfair and insulting to them? I am not prepared to take on yet another baby and tidy up yet another hatchet job. Are you? Then go ahead. But if neither of us is, and nor is anyone else, does it help this project to host crappy biographies, in the hope that some mythical "fixer" will come along in one, five or ten years, in the full knowledge that we may end up hosting crap for the foreseeable future, and hurting both a BLP subject and this project's reputation in the process? If that mythical fixer ever does come along, they can start from scratch. --J N 466 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tried to fix it - and was rewarded for my troubles NOT by an editor sitting on the BLP to make sure it remains in violation of policy. In such a case, the closing admin should examine the BLP, and, upon finding that efforts to bring it into compliance have been rebuffed, decide whether such an article should then remain in defiance of policy. Correct. Collect (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When someone satisfies our notability criteria, it means we may host an article about them; it doesn't mean we must. If the subject doesn't want one, and has had to struggle against sockpuppets trying to undermine him, he should have the right not to be bothered by Wikipedia any further—particularly when he is within a borderline-notable margin. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've already weighed-in above and would like only to draw the closing admin's attention to a few facts. First, the opinion that the subject's notability is borderline is nonsense on its face. Dowbiggin is a prolific author whose impact and notability are conclusively demonstrated by significant institutional holdings, for example 1476, 562, 474, 373, and so forth (there are more). These statistics are a clear pass of WP:PROF #1 and likely surpass a large fraction of the academics currently on WP. Second, some of the "delete" arguments above seem to be based on pragmatism ("Who's gonna fix it?", "Better to delete than face an uphill struggle"), the existence of socking ("this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article"), and ad hominem-based agenda ("Dowbiggin is an idiot and a religious crank"), all of which are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. As with numerous other previous cases, this article should have the courtesy of being kept and properly cleaned, even if it involves a little work. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- That if the subject pass of WP:PROF#1 then he may deserves an article is one thing. That the current "article" deserves to exists is another thing. It means: if the subject pass of WP:PROF#1 at any rate the subject does not deserves the current "article". And per WP:BLP the procedure is not let the crap published and then correct but quite the contrary: first discuss and correct and be sure the thing is right and only then publish anything. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, what you've said is inscrutable. Are you maintaining that the content of the article is somehow objectionable and that is why the article must be deleted? If so, than I'm afraid you're wrong. Such articles are fixed, so that they're POV-free and acceptable, not deleted. This process is based on WP:CONS. I assure you, there are many significantly more controversial BLPs here than this one. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    - I thought the inclusion criteria does not justify to open an article full of "significant" or "insignificant" falsehoods but at any rate falsehoods misrepresenting, discrediting and causing "significant" or "insignificant" grievence to a living person. And I should add that significancy of the grievence is something that should be determined and based primarily on the affected subject perception and concerns. At any rate, controversial dubious and/or false contents should not be published whatever they are considered significant or insignificant. I repeat, per WP:BLP: first discuss and correct and be sure the thing is right and only then publish anything -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're postulating some kind of preemptive formality that doesn't exist. The plain fact is that this subject is notable. If the content-related controversy is indeed as serious as you represent, then the page can simply be reduced to a stub of biographical information, list of books, etc. – that is, a simple recitation of facts and then be protected at some level for a suitable amount of time. That should certainly satisfy any concern you have, yes? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        The preemptive formality actually exists at wikipedia: do not publish false nor dubious contents nor OR, and although it is allowed to tag those contents with templates like "citation needed" nevertheless they should be removed immediately when there is a BLP involved. But let assume your proposal and let me put it even simpler: change it now or delete it now. Meanwhile, per WP:BLP there should be published solely an advice that the article is under construction. That should satisfy the request of keeping the article, but if that still does not satisfy the subject concerns I am certainly able to understand his choice to represent himself by his own means and words for every reason. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Several users seem to be engaged at this very moment in active discussion to resolve this issue. That is how WP works. Conversely, you seem to have some separate agenda for deleting this page and are trying to justify an end-run around standard policies. My observations above still stand: (1) subject is notable, and (2) most of the "delete" arguments are irrelevant. We fix the content, we do not delete the page. You're free to keep repeating yourself, but I'll try to sit the rest of this discussion out on the sideline. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        Any comment about my seeming agenda and alleged hiden intentions does seem like a sort of accusation that I will not discuss at all for every reason. I endorse Jayen466, Bilby, SlimVirgin and Collect: let change it or delete it. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and reinstate a more factual and balanced article in due course. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into a stub if necessary, as I did with this test version. The subject is clearly notable. Jesanj (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, request for replies What do you think now? I'm still working on it, obviously, but i'm removed most of the erroneous and misattributed information and clarified any wording that seemed POV-ish. Better than it was? Silverseren^C 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, thank you. I don't know enough about the subject matter to say whether the reviews we have used are the most important and representative ones, but you have clearly improved the article. --J N 466 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Delete WP:BLP is an important policy that we should take seriously, and until the apparent problems are resolved, it's best to remove the article from mainspace. I suggest userfying it into either a volunteer's user space where all editors can work on it, or into WikiProject Biography. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What issues are there still? I think i've removed all of them. If not, I need to know what they are. Silver seren^C 03:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is now a well-sourced factual recitation of the subject's work. Nice job. Would those who have been opposed please take a look and weigh-in on the new version? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I hope mr. Dowbiggin and ClaudioSantos can live with this version. I doubt it, because I support this version

Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am basing my recommendation on the current state of the article about a notable academic and author, and I won't look at earlier versions because that is the past and I don't want to view what may have been BLP violations unless necessary. If there were BLP problems previously, they have been eliminated, and if Silver seren is primarily responsible for eliminating the problems, then I commend that editor. I am adding this article to my watch list and encourage other participants in this debate to do so as well, so that it can be maintained in compliance with BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Solely comparing the current version with this edit made by the subjetc, still there could be mentioned some BLP concerns, for example, in the first paragraph. It is not hard to understand why the expulsed user insisted to tag the subject as a "catholic commentator", an "opponent" of this and that, etc., thus in order to discredit the subject as a sort of biased source more easily removable in other wikipedia articles, as an alleged unreliable or undue-weighted source. But, according to the sources and even according with the rest of the current article, the subject in the first paragraph is not being correctly represented. Surely Silverseren would realize the thing more or less easily, only by means of doing the mentioned comparisson. Last to mention that other parts of his work and books are absolutely not mentioned, but as Bilby mentioned, the current article is focused on few parts, and I have to add: precisely those parts which were of some interest for the agenda of the past unfortunate owner of the article. I can not assure that the subjetc still has other concerns and still feels misrepresented, which would be reasonable given the circumstances. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 05:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems clear, looking at the reliable sources within the current version of the article, that describing him as a "a commentator on Catholicism, and an opponent of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide" is accurate, neutral and supported by the sources. I do not see how such a characterization could be considered a BLP violation unless the description was unsupported by the sources. If he has done notable work in other areas that is not mentioned in the article, then the solution would be to to add that referenced content to the article. ClaudioSantos, if you believe that your topic ban prevents you from doing so, then please suggest additions on my talk page, and I will do my best to facilitate the additions that you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Instead of suggesting additions, I will solely notice some discrepances which could seem sutil but they are not. There is not any source for "commentator on catholicism", for example. And I still think that it had a clear purpose to highlight in the first paragraph that he is a "consultant in the christian cathedral..." despite he had other jobs. Also the sources refers to his work as an academic work on the history of medicine, and not solely related to topics like those of my topic ban. And also in these "controversial and banned" topics, Dowbiggin is well recognized as an historian rather than an "opponent" (despite his positions on these topics) and his work is considered and estimated as very objective and accurate, but the current version gives the impression that his books and work were made and written from a non-objective and biased position by tagging him not as historian but as "oppponent" on those topics, why so? well in order to do this (read the edit summary) and this. It means, to discredit him and remove him as a reliable source. Another example?: That he gave a conference in an event, it was in the past cherry picked by the past unfortunate owner of the article, as an attempt to precisely discredit his work as a sort of partisan non-objective pamphlet; that content was finally fortunately removed by Silver. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 06:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The relatively minor items you mention can easily be addressed through the normal process of editing and improving the article on a notable person, as opposed to deleting the article. If the phrase "commentator on Catholicism" bothers you, though it seems an inoffensive characterization to me based on the first source, then please suggest an alternate phrase. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this discussion, ClaudioSantos, is that you are under a broad topic ban regarding all discussion of eugenics (and other related matters), and this particular author has written on eugenics. My friendly advice to you is to comment no more on this particular AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- clear pass of WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: In any event, can we please unblock the subject? As far as I can see, he has made a grand total of 7 edits, using two non-overlapping accounts. To block someone like that as a sockpuppeteer is a clear violation of WP:BITE and WP:BLPEDIT; and bearing in mind that his biography was slanted against him by a real sockpuppeteer, it is in fact adding insult to injury. It is this sort of thing that brings this project into deserved disrepute. --J N 466 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the subject is notable enough to have a bio there are plenty of professors who meet that mark who don't have articles - there's now mandate for us to have an article on every professor and if someone who is "notable" but not famous (however you want to define that) doesn't want to have an article then I believe their wishes should be respected. I'd feel differently if this were an elected official, a senior amdministrator or someone who has broken through into what might be called mainstream notability. Alternatively, see what changes he wants made to the article and, if they're reasonable, make them. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the standard offer we make to people who write into OTRS: tell us what's wrong and we'll fix them. But they seem to prefer to have ownership of their articles rather than actually telling us what's wrong. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, this sort of comment is inappropriate to make in the discussion of a BLP that well and truly had been slanted against the subject. And sometimes there is a real echo chamber effect here, because OTRS volunteers getting a complaint from someone they've never heard of first look at the Wikipedia BLP to find out who that person is. And if that's a hatchet job, where some editor has focused on some bit of sourceable negative info, then I imagine it's easy to slip into a mindset of mistrust: "Aha, zey vant to vitevash zeir biography". The fact is that many (perhaps not all, but many) of our biography subjects are notable and reasonable people who know very well what their reception looks like overall, and if they tell you that their biography is slanted against them, then you should put more prima facie credence in what they're saying than into what our article is saying, because in my experience it is very rare indeed that subjects' complaints are without merit. Regards. --J N 466 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this view, but the salient question is whether the article, as it now stands, has remedied this problem. If so, then I think we probably could all agree that it is a keep, because notability itself seems no longer to be in question. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Vale, you're arguing WP:WAX while admitting this person is notable (while the subject is notable enough to have a bio). Are you sure you mean "delete"? :) I think Cullen has rightly observed that the content issues have now largely been resolved and that, if anyone still feels that there are specific issues remaining, those should be called-out so that they can be fixed (as Tom just indicated). The broad consensus, even from the "deletes" such as yourself, seems to be that the subject is notable. Unless there are still specific content problems, it would seem there isn't much more to discuss. Agricola44 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Remember that WP:Wikipedia is not censored and that the subject does not WP:OWN the article. We should move the debate away from about the subject and towards the notability and BLP status of the article. After reading through, it seems fine and sourced. A412 (Talk * C) 22:21, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Biosca[edit]

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

PROD removal with no reasoning. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. Cloudz 679 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article suggests notability; being the physician for a football club does not make one automatically notable. Google News search finds only articles in Spanish and Ukranian; I cannot evaluate them properly, but they don't look like significant coverage to me. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the general notability guideline and guidelines for notability in association football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of the Dolphin[edit]

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

Album exists, but lacks substantial, non-passing, multiple RS coverage. ~~Allmusic never heard of it.~~ Article has zero refs. Tagged for zero refs last month. Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Allmusic does have a listing for it after all--but there's not much else. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HangingCurve. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:33, 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 the redirect was speedy deleted by Kudpung as "(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovelasting Life[edit]

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

Delete Blatant use of WP:HOAX. The PROD tag that I added was removed twice by the creator (BeanyFans (talk · contribs)). The user is obviously using Wikipedia as an art canvass for his/her imagination. Fake artist, fake album, this is pretty cut and dry. Quasy Boy 19:28, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am now withdrawing this deletion discussion, the page creator seems to have seen the error of their ways and redirected the article, to an non-related person no less: Talisa Soto. The redirect link is currently ((db))'d. Quasy Boy 22:16, 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) 04:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Haukaas[edit]

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

Article about non-notable artist, biggest achievement is winning Melodi Grand Prix Junior in 2003. Fails WP:GNG imo. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of media coverage, and WP:MUSICBIO. – Kosm1 fent 12:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:49, 16 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?} 18:57, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:34, 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 delete. Can be recreated if substantial coverage appears, such as the promised article by jigsawnovich. Sandstein 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sokout[edit]

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

Searched for combination album and rapper name, in both English and Persian, and cannot find substantial RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 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?} 19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - My four page feature article about Bahram will be published very soon, in English, in a major magazine. His Sokout album, and songs in the Sokout album are mentioned in the article, and they are an integral part of the story. He will have an excellent reference for this Sokout Wikipedia article and for the Bahram Nouraei (rapper) article very soon. jigsawnovich (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote is not policy-based. We don't write articles, or fail to delete them, on the basis of soon-to-be-published single articles that an editor tells us they will soon have published. We need existing, multiple, substantial, RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If jigsawnovich or anyone else finds reliable sources which indicate notability then the article can be remade. Right now, there are none. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahram Nouraei (rapper).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My four page feature article about Bahram will be published on February 5, 2012, and is expected to be on newsstands by February 7th. The article is in English, and will be published by an internationally recognized magazine. The article mentions Bahram's Sokout album.--Jigsawnovich (talk)21:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Please see WP:CRYSTAL.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being covered in detail by multiple independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page.Farhikht (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I wrote in here, the music artist is not notable himself, so the consequence is that his album would not be notable too. There is just one reference in the article which is not reliable and it have been written by an unknown person which made it like a weblog. I didn't find any official websites which review or introduce this album. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:35, 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. Most of the keep votes are not policy- or guideline based (e.g. "gives a good basic information" or variations on "Keep for the time being", which is the opposite of what we should do). The other ones, and the basis of the discussion, revolves around the sources, but the sources presented by the keep side are not sufficient to meet the generally accepted standards for those, as set out in our guidelines. E.g. a source like [16] (given below) is in reality a copy of the promo site for the film here, not an independent review (never mind a reliable source). Taken all this into account, the "delete" opinions have the stronger, more policy- and guideline-based argument. Fram (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable movie. CSD was originally removed for content issues, and PROD tag removed previously as well. Searching for info on the movie, it's hard to locate any info outside of non-reliable sources, or a blurb on a blog. If sources can be located by others, the article could be improved. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was also created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of a an indef-blocked account. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added another critical article from Huffington Post about the film, so my opinion is that we should allow this article to survive. __meco (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the Huffington Post article, the Wikipedia article in question meets all General notability guideline , I believe there is some worthwhile discussion around this film and the ideas it presents. I heard about this by word of mouth in Zürich, Switzerland. 145K Facebook "Likes" and 99k "Recommends" - its not exactly unknown. JonathanCross (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A question about the Huffington Post piece, this is a blog, not an actual article, so would this still be a good enough source? Also Facebook "likes" and "recommends" unfortunately don't matter when it comes to this. Like I said in my nomination, if this can be sourced out well, I have no problem with it being kept, I just don't see good enough sources yet Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term blog isn't as clearcut as some would have it. Huffington Post is a blog site, yet it is a lot more reliable than, say a blog on Wordpress. Same goes for blogs connected to major newspapers featuring the paper's own writing staff. I see at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that Huffington Post is a recurring item, so we could ask them what the correct assessment if our source would be. __meco (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, I'd like clarity on that for not just this article, but all articles. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not inclined to make that query, so would you? __meco (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One response stated that the blog was good for stating the opinions of the writer, but as a source, not so much. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that means it doesn't count towards establishing the subject as notable. We'll keep that in mind then. __meco (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article gives a good basic information about the film. Dr. Krischer (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But how does that make the movie notable? Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:48, 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional sources (over and above those already listed in the article) here, here and here.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all blogs. Useless for establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there's more to Wikipedia than notability, Dominus Vobisdu. Thrive the documentary isn't just fringe weirdo freakiness, it's well-marketed fringe weirdo freakiness. As encyclopaedists, we're educators and we do have a basic duty to our readers in cases like this. One of the reasons these bizarro fringe theories take hold is because people who ought to be skeptical opinion leaders—educators, informers, etc.—won't take them seriously enough to argue against them. Personally, I think we need to cover it because we need to explain where it goes wrong. And we can do so within our rules, because it's not hard to produce impeccable sources for statements like "Free energy suppression is bunk".—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP is concerned, if it doesn't exist in reliable independent secondary sources, it doesn't exist at all. And no amount of marketing makes something significant enough to include here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, what makes it significant enough to include here is the sources already in the article. Yes, I've read the opinion statements about the Huffington Post that were linked from above and I don't find them convincing; I don't see why it doesn't suffice. WP:N doesn't discount all blogs, you know. My point about debunking fringe nonsense is intended as an addition to the arguments already raised above, not a replacement for them.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rounding out the article to update the current state of reference around the film. Thinkin3d (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources for a NFILM pass, either by the letter or by the spirit. Sure, there are a lot of blogs, Facebook "likes" and so on, but "keep" arguments that cite those seem to be invoking WP:ITSPOPULAR in all but name - they're not reliable sources for anything else, so why should we make an exception here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This very AfD nomination comes so soon after the film's release, there's barely been time for notability to be established. The fact that Wikipedia is often ahead of the (proverbial) curve should be taken into account here, and should offer reasonable justification to keep this article and allow it to improve with a little time. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If it is too soon for coverage in reliable sources to exist, the it is also to soon for the article to exist. -- Whpq (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Clearly some reliable sources DO exist, as cited in the article. Deleting this article at such an early stage seems premature.
    - Reply - Insufficient reliable sources indicate that the creation of the article is premature. Why do you feel we must ruch to create articles before sufficient sourcing exists? -- Whpq (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment To those who had to suffer through Zeitgeist, What the #$*! Do We Know!? et al, it is obvious that this movie is little other than a scam. Either it will sink in indignation, or it will be discussed more widely, and in more WP:RS. At present, this is unresolved. But we do have, for example, Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About (which is uncannily similar to Thrive as regards the general premise), and we have Australian bush flower essences (which has a sourcing problem), and we have Tama-Re (which has not and presumably never will have any high-quality sources).

The present problem of lack of independent RS will either be resolved in time, or not. Certainly however, there is a considerable "buzz", and people will turn to WP to find out more. Should they find nothing, or should they find at least something that will allow them to see through this scam? I'd go with the latter. Also, paralleling the above, that "buzz" will either generate outside (i.e. RS) interest in time, or it will die down.

So we could/might/should simply postpone the AfD for half a year or so. The underlying problem is the means of marketing this movie. It is designed to bypass the conventional channels (movie theaters), and hence will not as easily be reviewed in the conventional sources. For the time being, I am not surprised that it has not generated much interest outside sources on the level of HuffPost (and below, i.e. non-RS), but since there is a certain educational benefit for the public at large in keeping the article, I'd keep it for a bit longer to see how it develops. This is especially warranted since there will likely be more movies etc with unconventional means of distribution in the future; some will be great, some will bomb, but we won't be able to tell as quickly as with other content. The significance of "new media" is growing to the detriment of "conventional" RS, and WP eventually needs to find a policy to accomodate this. Why not make Thrive a test case? It is well suited; the harm done by keeping now deleting later if it fails is (IMO) less than the harm done by deleting now rebuilding later if it succeeds.

It may be advisable to restrict editing permissions though, because it is too tempting a target for the fan base.

TL;DR: Keep for the time being because similar (and worse) stuff has been kept too and not since yesterday, and because the fan crowd should at least find something on WP that points them to Free energy lest they die in ignorance. We can't tell yet how this develops, and it's less effort to delete it later than to restore-and-update it later. Also, it may be useful to turn to non-English sources (Spanish, Russian and German come to mind, they have been most proactive about such eso-conspi stuff in the past). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is essentially an argument that we keep the article to see if it becomes notable based on the fact that some people have heard of the movie and may look it up on wikipedia. Every movie that is released has been heard of by somebody, and has the potential to be looked up on wikipedia by somebody, but we don't have an article for every single movie ever released because we only have articles for the ones that meet our inclusion guidelines. If there are other crappy articles out there that are worse than this one, then they need to be improved if possible, or deleted if they don't meet notability. However, their presence is not relevant to keeping this article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches failed to turn up anything significant in independent reliable sources. Scant mention in non-reliable blogs. The film has failed to generate wide interest as of yet. Until it does, there is no justification for keeping this article on WP per WP:TOOSOON. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:05, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Edit: I am a teacher and was sent an invitation to a presentation of the film by a parent, along with a link to the main website. I count on Wikipedia to keep me abreast of new trends. That said, nearly the entire entry consists of quotes from other sources, and those things that are not quotes are vague. I'd like an entry, but for it to be pared down considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.74.215 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with point made above by Dysmorodrepanis. olivier (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page reeks of promotion and has the barest credentials. I must agree with nominator that page created by a known sock puppet of an indef-blocked socker should be subject to close scrutiny. User:Dominus Vobisdu makes the valid points above this film has no wide interest and zero sources other than blogs (and HPost has always been just a massive blog operation which allows neos to associate themselves with and paint themselves as pros; musician Georgia Kelly has exactly six posts to HP). The sources raised here by User:S Marshall are equally unimpressive. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as G11 - Promotion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarraino theory[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator. No evidence that this theory meets notability criteria for inclusion. This may be a speedy deletion candidate as G11 (using Wikipedia to promote an idea or ideology). A search on "Sarraino theory" only returns a YouTube video uploaded to that site today; the uploader 's YouTube account name matches the article creator's Wikipedia account name. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:46, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Kanojia[edit]

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

Article has only 3 citations and all 3 are dead links. No evidence that the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:43, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've managed to retrieve two of the citations using the Internet Archive. Both of them are from organisations the subject is/was working with. Did find a record of a court case against him and he was guest speaker at an international yoga convention. I do not think subject meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 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. The consensus is to keep - but if someone want to create a sourced article about the company, I am happy to email them the text of this article to be incorporated into that. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TechExcel DevSuite[edit]

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

Article does not indicate notability. Only third-party references read like press-releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I failed to find any references that don't look like paid promotion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:54, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:54, 16 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?} 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award references in the article do check out; as with many industry-specific awards it can be difficult to assess real relevance, but there are technical readership awards in there, and the suite was a Stevie Awards finalist. But there are also reliable-looking book references (I added one to the article) and others such as this in snippet view, describing it as a "market-leading defect and project tracking solution". Enough I think for a presumption against non-notability. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Stevie Awards don't help, as this is a business award, not a software one. Business award is a good point in the article about the company, but not about software. The books are a good point in keeping it, but I'm not convinced that the software of a kind can possibly be notable: it is only of niche professional interest; the article itself suggests 1500 customers. I think the answer for this question can be directly translated to keep or delete outcome by the closing admin. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I take your point about niche professional s/w - difficult to be firm on notability. Your comments raise a wider question: rather than an article entitled "TechExcel DevSuite", which is after all a bundling of various products, would it be better renamed to "TechExcel" and repurposed to cover the company as a business? They do also have a Service Desk product range, which appears to have some recognition (assuming I managed to see past the press releases) and which would then also have a home position. AllyD (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that moving and repurposing the article to TechExcel company with brief description of products would be a good idea, but then we need at least to prove that TechExcel passes WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to TechExcel and diversify. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG. Like nominator, I can't find significant coverage of this product in RS or the company as passing NCORP. Minor industry awards are not convincing. TechExcel may make good software, but I can't find any sources which cover it or its products indepth. Article appears to be written by someone (User:PattiCakes91; 28 edits) inside the company. TechExcel ServiceWise has all the same issues (written by User:Techwizization; 10 edits). Virtually everything about both articles is marketing-related. BusterD (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. Without prejudice to adding sourced info to the Lakeview, New York article. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeview fire department[edit]

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

Per notability, the Lakeview volunteer fire department lacks sufficient coverage in newspapers or other media to merit an article. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. If there were sourced information, I'd suggest that it be covered in the article for the jurisdiction itself. Nor do I see the need for a redirect, as there are other Lakeviews. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as originator: article could certainly be rolled into Lakeview, which (according to the article) is a " ... census-designated place (CDP) in Nassau County, New York ... " TreacherousWays (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, failing WP:ORG. --Ifnord (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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sahi (software)[edit]

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

Does not indicate notability. Google does not support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article was deleted as an expired PROD, but restored by me per WP:DEPROD following a request on my talk page. An optimist on the run! 07:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability shown after prod. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. No refs showing coverage in reliable sources, just developer's site and sourceforge. Created by an SPA who describes himself as the author of this software, so page is likely promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: brief search revealed IBM's review,^[1] another review on a news site I'm not aware of,^[2] review by some company in their blog,^[3] a mention in a book^[4] and some other results form Google Books and Google Scholar with "Sahi Ajax Java" query. I would like to note, though, that the article in its current shape is no-go. Probably reducing it to stub and tagging would be appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite WP:SPA and WP:PROMO issues, this seems notable: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, e.g. [17], [18]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View discussion to see references

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:37, 16 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?} 19:40, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoco[edit]

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

Corporation is not notable and includes information about technology it is working on that is already found in other articles such as Quantum_dots and Quantum_dot_display. All references are related (investors, financial profiles, Nanoco's own website, etc.) to the corporation or do not actually reference the corporation itself. Information regarding solar cells can be added here: Copper_indium_gallium_selenide_solar_cells. The entire article appears to be an attempt by a company to establish a visible presence to investors. The company however is not inherently notable and does not have coverage from secondary sources. Azndragonemperor (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak uncertainty; news on the company can be found at Reuters, at The Scotsman. Excess content can be address via editing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:20, 16 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?} 19:37, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasha Records[edit]

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

Exists, but its mention in RSs does not seem to be sufficiently substantial coverage. Not to be confused w/gospel company by the same name. Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not substantial, but significant. DJ and Mixmag are pretty decent sources. [19] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:14, 16 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?} 19:36, 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 without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Can be recreated or restored by request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CeCors[edit]

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

I found mainly company overviews and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:13, 16 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?} 19:35, 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 leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katkui[edit]

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

I've managed to add some context to this largely rambling discourse, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources. Seems to be a minor administrative division of an Indian town. As a stand alone article it fails the WP:GNG suggest delete or redirect to Amroha. It's at AfD because the author seems very keen to keep it. Pol430 talk to me 10:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 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?} 12:40, 16 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?} 19:31, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon in Europe[edit]

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

I'm not seeing notability here. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some serious work (NPOV, references, refactoring) but it seems notable enough. I've never heard of it but it seems like a fair number of people have [20].--Carbon Rodney 07:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any idea of a less confusing title? I thought it was going to be a biographical article, comparable to "Napoleon on Elba" or "Napoleon on St Helena". Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BGG page has a few external links. I can't tell if the reviews (one in English, two in in Italian) are from RSes or not. [21]. Hobit (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should definitely be renamed to Napoleon in Europe (game) to avoid ambiguity, per Nyttend. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:41, 16 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?} 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – is Richard Moore, the editor of the Napoleonic Guide web site, considered a reliable source? If so, his review can be used for an additional citation to satisfy WP:GNG. He says he is a professional journalist, so that should be sufficient. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:31, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwar Sharan[edit]

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

This article was created by a friend of its subject. "Ishwar Sharan" is a common name but relevant GHits are slim & Gscholar is worse still. He and the cottage industry that surrounds him claim that there is a media blackout of their fringe theories, which have origins in & are supported by Hindu nationalists. Despite the numerous citations, those that relate to the theory itself are all published and/or written by people with high levels of controversy surrounding them. The theory itself seems to attract no mainstream support at all. I think that we are giving a lot of space to a quite extreme theory falling under WP:FRINGE here, even after toning down the language that was originally in the article. Sitush (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability goes, this book is interesting. It names a lot of Hindutva and Hindu nationalist theorists (and notes that most of them are not academics). Among those referred to are Sita Ram Goel, Koenraad Elst, P. N. Oak & K. D. Sethna. It also mentions the Voice of India (now the Voice of Dharma) as a Hindutva publishing house. However, despite the many names referred to, it does not mention Ishwar Sharan. Is this an indication that he is not even considered to be a notable person in these circles? Our article relies heavily on an allegedly banned interview, on the output of Goel, Elst and VoI/VoD, and on nonentities writing on non-mainstream opinion sites (such as this) & in the odd less-than-spectacular newspaper. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some info has come to light here regarding scholarly doubts for claims relating to early Christianity/St Thomas in India. Nonetheless, Sharan's views remain extreme in their depth & presentation (eg: what has the appearance of a persecution complex) and his notability questionable. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subject. There are no third party reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen his name in a couple of places before, but there's no real WP:RS coverage of him, so doesn't pass WP:BIO. —SpacemanSpiff 13:48, 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 userfy to User:RaviC/Gemulator Explorer. After declining NOBW's G11 suggestion and discounting 2 WP:ILIKEIT keeps, I almost closed this as "no consensus" but it's unclear how notable those 2 forensic journals are. Userfying so RaviC can continue to work on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gemulator Explorer[edit]

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

I only found trivial mentions for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's an interesting idea (aren't some of these "foreign" formats constant linear speed, not constant rotation speed, so that's a hard technical problem to solve). However this article contains nothing, either detail or sourcing. Articles have to be better than this if they're to make their case for inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as promo! Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made this article about six years ago. It was a lot more popular then as it was one of the few ways to open Mac-formatted disks on a PC. Most of the sites discussing it have removed it from their pages. But it's probably irrelevant in today's world where everything is either on the cloud or a universal format. --RaviC (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having said that, it seems to still be recommended by two forensic journals. --RaviC (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep it for posterity when we didnt have usb flash drives and mac os 9 and windows 98 were popular and powerpc was used on macs instead of intel so you didnt have bootcamp they were the days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.16.122 (talk) 21:18, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:16, 16 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?} 19:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on GNews, and GBooks only returns trivial mentions, one of which cites this article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from the bygone days of incompatible computing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.39.10 (talk) 17:29, 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas International[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis competition. It only ran once, with only one game - seems more like an exhibition match than anything else. Cannot find any sources other than news reports at the time. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. Same with Ferrara. Not notable. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that this event was hardly as significant as other major tennis events, but it was part of the Grand Prix tennis circuit and is counted on the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) web site, which I included as a source when creating this article. Additionally, I created this article as part of the effort of fulfilling one of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis, which is to "Create articles for every tennis tournament for male and female players, especially since the beginning of the Open Era, including yearly articles and draws." For these reasons, I feel that this article should be maintained. User:Alexk785 (talk)

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, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis as cited by Alexk785. Cloudz 679 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:18, 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 but leaning toward keep due to a longstanding consensus that high schools are kept. However, this article needs work and I had to revdel copyvio material from it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ILBC (International Language & Business Centre)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Gsingh (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From what I can find on the institution's website, this is a full-service school in Yangon, Burma. According to its org chart, it has both primary and secondary divisions. Unfortunately, neither the article nor the website is very clear. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be a significant school based on the results of a google search. I feel that there isn't enough information available to make this a viable article. Gsingh (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with both of you that the google results are, as Gene put it, not very clear. But, I believe that our general approach is that -- if verifiable -- we generally keep high schools. I believe (but others should correct me if I am wrong) that we do so even if we can support by RS nothing more than the existence of the high school.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: High school system. An independent school organisation that provides mainsstream education at all levels including GCE O-level and university entrance as stated on its its website. Thus high school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:52, 16 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?} 19:17, 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Atif Hussain[edit]

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

There is a lack of RS coverage of this "popular and an experienced TV director and producer". Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He appears to go by the name Atif Hussain on some of the material from the network about the show: [22]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 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?} 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously tagged for Notability and BLP sources, but the tags were deleted without corresponding improvement. So delete unless someone can add stronger sources than the current links to Facebook and a video sharing site. AllyD (talk) 23:01, 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 Compaq Presario. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compaq Presario 5000[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is unnecessary, as it is part of a notable range of products (Compaq Presario) and there has been no discussion about whether to merge the articles. Peter E. James (talk) 01:43, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not Delete. Merge into Compaq Presario, along with 6000 series. Only primary sources. Widefox (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Compaq Presario. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:16, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tryon Coterie[edit]

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

Single chapter men’s collegiate social clubs. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N. GrapedApe (talk) 15:28, 8 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 02:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:09, 16 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?} 19:03, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animation Source Choice Awards[edit]

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

Contested prod. Award with no evidence of notability, no evidence whatsoever that they're covered in reliable sources. A vague and unsourced statement, "So far several people have joined Animation Source just to vote for the awards show" suggests a complete lack of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

1st Animation Source Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Neither of them has any independent sources cited, neither of them has any evidence of notability either in the article or (as far as I have been able to find) anywhere else. Both are somewhat promotional. Everything I have seen suggests that these Wikipedia articles are an attempt to publicise a non-notable event. (Note: The creator of both of these articles has an unambiguous conflict of interest.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – no significant coverage in reliable, nontrivial, third-party sources. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 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. Michig (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of stone churches[edit]

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

Too broad a scope for a manageable list. As in most countries most church buildings are built in stone, this list is going to be too long to have any encyclopedic value. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You'd have to list just about every church in every village in Quebec for such a list to be complete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, scope is impossible and encyclopedic value of categorization is unclear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete too vague to be used for info and navigation purposes.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague and broad. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable, since stone is a fairly common building material for churches. There's also no evidence that this is a worthy category for a list. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scope too broad to be useful and is unmaintainable. --Elekhh (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could work as a category, not as an article. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Stone churches in the United States already exists. St Anselm (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too broad in its scope, fails WP:LISTN, etc. This belongs as a category instead. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:23, 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. Michig (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Brien (Australian businessman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Article was created by a user who appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO possible WP:AUTOBIO. the awards won are minor. not like "Australian Franchisee of the Year" is some sort of major business award. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Satu Suro 02:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 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. Michig (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niki-Lee Bulmer[edit]

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

Originally PROD'ed, since Mr. Bulmer has not played in a fully pro league, failing WP:NSPORT. All sources provided are match reports, routine transfer coverage, and a player profile, all insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the general notability guideline and guidelines for notability in association football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:18, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grazioso da Padova[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced, lacking claims of significance or importance. Notability not established in accordance with topical notability guidelines for composers or general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our guidelines are not well equipped to deal with a case like this. Little is known about this composer but he's mentioned in countless reference books about Medieval music. At the very least, he deserves a redirect to some appropriate target. Pichpich (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've declined the A7 speedy on this article on the grounds that, given that the man lived in the Middle Ages, the very fact his name made it to our era suggests some importance, even if it's not explicitly stated. We only need to make sure that it's not a hoax, and Pichpich's comment suggests it's not. It's just a matter of inserting appropriate references, that's all. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pichpich and Blanchardb. There are enough sources online to verify that this composer existed and some of his music survives. We probably need someone with access to printed sources to expand the article. --Deskford (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed in "Some evidence for French influence in northern Italy c. 1400" (Studies in the performance of late medieval music), apparently has an entry in New Grove but I can't access that, dozens of brief mentions (couple of sentences or a paragraph) in other sources, and other things I can't access and so don't know how lengthy the discussion is. I agree with Blanchardb that medieval composers and so on get a notability boost just from not having faded into oblivion; this also helps us correct WP:RECENTISM. Also try searching on "Gratiosus de Padua." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pichpich and Blanchardb. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added to the article a reference to Grove, which is the gold standard amongst music encyclopedias (at least in English), so an entry there is proof that the topic is encyclopedic. That source itself lists seven further scholarly sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. I just added a bit more using the New Grove as a source. Don't have JSTOR at the moment but there's plenty more there if anyone is ambitious. Antandrus (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. My apologies for not watching this discussion closer. Clearly this should be withdrawn and speedy closed. Thanks to those that worked to address issues. I appreciate the indulgence of my ineptitude on this one. ;) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:06, 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 keep. Aside from Carrite's comment that was almost a "delete" !vote, there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging/redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable book - fails WP:NBOOK absent significant coverage in reliable sources. All reliable references are trivial, eg. "Robert Spencer, who has a blog and wrote The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, said this thing," etc.; other references are unreliable and/or affiliated, or happen to contain said chain of words without being about the book. The one exception is the Asia Times review, but that's not enough to build an article on; it's a WP:NBOOK fail even going by the letter, to say nothing of the spirit.

Article was kept in previous AFD, but that was six and a half years ago when "I like it," "censorship!!" and "just keep it" were given weight equal to policy-based !votes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reserving judgement. There are a lot of hits for this book, but many of the mentions are brief, as noted above and many of the "reviews" come from sites which might not pass strict RS. Leaning towards keep, but a redirect to Robert Spencer wouldn't bother me. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I went through the GNews, GBooks, and LexisNexis hits pretty thoroughly, so let me know if you think there's something I missed or sized up incorrectly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to redirect to Robert Spencer (author). This article has been in existence for some time, but remains very brief, not enough to justify a separate article from the author. PatGallacher (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – which could be more specifically a ((redirect to section)) Robert Spencer (author)#Bibliography. --Lambiam 11:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mentioned in a few articles, a few reviews. Nothing amazing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lambiam Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Redirect~~ striking, see below. I was expecting to find some better references, but as Roscelese points out, they tend to either just mention the book in passing or they're from unreliable sources. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added substantial RS coverage to the article. Included in what I've added is a full book review in Asia Times, in which the reviewer (while in part criticizing it) says the book "warrants our attention. Any study of contemporary Islam would be incomplete without it", significant coverage in National Review, and other refs. Most of the refs I've added are critical of the book, but they constitute IMHO clearly the requisite significant coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already specifically mentioned the Asia Times review in order to point out that one reliably-sourced review is not a NBOOK pass even by the letter, much less by the spirit. Another review from the same author won't cut it as a separate source. Too, even if you decide to ignore the fact that Spencer writes for National Review and that sources affiliated with the subject cannot possibly establish notability, "two" does not fulfill the spirit of "multiple" in any encyclopedically meaningful sense. Nice job citing trivial mentions and pretending they're reviews in order to claim a notability which does not exist, but really it's not Wikipedia's job to cover every fringe anti-Muslim book that exists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for admitting that the Asia Times review is significant RS coverage. I've added a number of other refs reflecting non-trivial RS coverage. And as to your suggestion that "two" does not "fulfill the spirit" of multiple -- that's an interesting notion, but perhaps somewhat at odds with the dictionary definition of multiple.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is also, I've just discovered, a 700+ word book review devoted to this book in the September 22, 2005, Middle East Journal. And, in addition, Midwest Book Review has this book review devoted to the book, which is partially behind a paywall. And Publishers Weekly has this book review devoted to the book, also partially behind a paywall. And this book review, also devoted to the book, appeared in June 2006 in First Things, and is also partially behind a paywall.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Middle East Journal "review" is actually an abstract in the journal's "Recent Publications" section and reads, in its entirety:
  Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, ed. by Robert Spencer. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books,2 005. 589 pages. Contribs. to p. 593. $26. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims is a collection of 58 essays that are grouped under six headings: Islamic Tolerance: Myth and Reality, Islamic Law Regarding Non-Muslims, Islamic Practice Regarding Non-Muslims, The Myth and Contemporary Geopolitics, Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nations, and The Myth in Contemporary Academic and Public Discourse. The collection seeks to challenge the view that Muslims are tolerant of non-Muslims, and to argue that Islam is a "totalitarian ideology."
  The Library Bookwatch and First Things (the latter of which may be questionably reliable anyway, given that it's the publication of an agenda-based think tank) "reviews" are literally three sentences long, and the Publishers Weekly, also a single paragraph, isn't much longer. This is not significant coverage. The fact that you seem to feel a need to misrepresent sources in order to pretend the book is notable says more about you than about the book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Publisher Weekly is hidden behind a paywall. You can only see the first paragraph. It is a book review of this book though. Dream Focus 10:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's actually only one paragraph of a few sentences, I've read it. "It's behind a paywall so you don't know that it isn't trivial" is no good if someone has EBSCO, etc. and can actually read it and see how trivial it is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing position in light of new sources. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have reviewed the book, that in the article now. Anyone could've clicked the Google News Archive search at the top of the AFD, and easily found plenty. Most of those first page results are about this book. Dream Focus 18:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be confusing WP:BEFORE with WP:GOOGLEHITS. Know why it's an argument to avoid? Because if you'd taken the trouble, as I did, to read the hits, you, too, would have seen that they do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Asia Times Online mentions it throughout an article at [23]. Search for it and see how much is written about it, that significant coverage. ~~Front Page Magazine reviews the book. [24]~~ Publisher Weekly counts as a reliable source, and does a book review for it. Other results are hidden behind paywalls, or just quote or mention the book. Dream Focus 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL, Wikipedia does not consider fringe sources like FrontPage reliable, check the RSN archives. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There needs to be an RFC on book inclusion. Virtually every single book published can meet the criteria of "having been reviewed in reliable sources." This leaves the barn door open for POV trojan horses like this one... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this book doesn't even meet that criterion. We've got one source of significant, reliable coverage, plus a lot of trivial mentions and fringe websites. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Composed of works by well-known thinkers on the subject. The fact the subject makes some people uncomfortable is irrelevant. Frotz (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Author is famous" is not a criterion except in cases where the author's body of work is notable as a whole (like, say, Twain). The theory is that the author's notability should lead other people to cover the books, which would then mean that the books pass our notability guidelines. But that hasn't been the case here (or for the other Robert Spencer book articles deleted a few months back); some of his books have been covered, some have not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The editor has written enough to justify separate articles for his books. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "author is famous" is not considered a notability criterion, and the argument you're using has specifically been rejected by the community for Spencer's books, which is why these articles were unanimously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam Unveiled (2nd nomination). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that was all that's necessary. There has to be enough to justify an article on the book that isn't just a repeat of the author's article. In this case, I think there is. I'd be slightly more likely to agree with you if this was a paper encyclopedia. It might then make more sense to put everything in one massive article. But this isn't a paper encyclopedia. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Spencer's books are notable because they have been discussed in sufficient detail in multiple reliable sources, and consequently have their own articles, but others, like this one, have not. Would you support a merge in which some of the content would be preserved, since there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources here to support a separate article? Those Spencer books which have received the necessary coverage would of course remain separate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I really don't see a problem with these articles. Even if I was to agree with the general idea of combining, one difference between this one and the others is that it has multiple authors. BTW: I'd support a keep even if the book was Enemy Combatant (book). -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish the book and for that matter the author were not notable, but the sources are otherwise. They're in the article, and discussed above. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spare us the posturing please. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep "All reliable references are trivial." Reliable. Maybe. Books is recognized by peer-reviewed scholars and popular commentators. There is clearly an absence of news-based sources, but responses from known writers certainly qualify as acceptable secondary sources. Agree with Carrite, community needs to establish a more definitive parameters for book articles. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're joking, right? The extent of its mention in the National Review is "Spencer and other conservatives have produced a whole corpus of books with titles like Sword of the Prophet, Islam Unveiled, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance..." This is about as trivial as you can get. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 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. Unfortunately, there's a clear consensus that this book is notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onward Muslim Soldiers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable book – fails WP:NBOOK absent significant (not brief) coverage in reliable (with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than for pushing an agenda at the expense of accuracy) sources. Reliable mentions are trivial, eg. "Spencer, who wrote Onward Muslim Soldiers, said X" or footnoting it as an example of anti-Muslim rhetoric. Other sources are affiliated with Spencer (which would disqualify them even if they weren't already contained within the set "unreliable sources"), or coincidentally use this string of words without referring to his book (if you're looking for sources make sure you include "Spencer").

Article was kept at last AfD, but since then we have come to recognize that "every book is notable," "the author is notable so all his books are," "you're trying to censor the truth," "just keep it," etc. are not policy-based arguments against deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undecided for now. I think the problem we might have with this discussion is that most of the sources that mention this book take a clear view on its content. Would that mean they were "pushing an agenda"? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't a book review generally take a position on the book? I'm talking about things like the review reprinted here, which is published by a right-wing Zionist organization. Is there a source you have found that you think might be suitable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant that they will tend to agree or disagree with the ideas put forward in the text. Sorry if I was being unclear. ~~I'm not sure I follow your other point. Are you saying that someone writing from a right-wing standpoint is unreliable?~~ striking that, I'm not starting an argument. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

What I started to say last night, before giving up and going to bed, was that reliability does not depend on being right-wing or left-wing, zionist or anti-zionist. One unfortunate tendency which appears over and over again in these discussions is the idea that my side are telling the plain unvarnished truth but they are distorting the evidence and pushing an agenda. It really doesn't help. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel the same if we had an article from, I don't know, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid that tore the book to shreds. It's not about left or right, it's about whether the source a. has advocacy as its primary goal and b. lacks the reputation for fact-checking that WP:RS requires. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Spencer (author)#Bibliography. Fails the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. See also Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (2nd nomination). --Lambiam 11:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable work of "topical non-fiction" — with a promotional function it would seem, given the prominent placement of the book publishers' bar code (ISBN number). Carrite (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substantial RS coverage of this book. I've added only some of it to the article just now. Including: 1) a review devoted to the book in News Weekly that concluded that the book "deserves a wide reading"; 2) the discussion of the book by Khalid Hasan in Pakistan's Daily Times in which he pointed out that the book was part of the “great Islamic conspiracy” and "not correct by a long shot", and 3) discussion of the book both in another book, and discussion of it in 4) a review devoted to the book in Arts & Opinion. That suffices. But further RS coverage can be sifted out of the 46 gnews hits and 591 gbooks hits. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're joking, right? News Weekly is the newsletter of a right-wing think tank, not an actual newspaper. The Citron book is just reprinting a review from another right-wing think tank. NBOOK requires coverage in reliable sources, not from anyone with a website and an opinion. And don't cite WP:GOOGLEHITS at me – I actually did the work of reading the Google hits, which you clearly didn't since you're claiming these sources are reliable and/or nontrivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why mention "right-wing": you clearly stated on 14th January (above), that political alignment was irrelevant. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also mentioned "think tank," but that doesn't seem to have dissuaded you from keeping an article on something that isn't covered in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ros – you say you read the sources. But you failed to alert your colleagues to the discussion of the book by the notable Khalid Hasan in Pakistan's Daily Times. (Source 1) Or the book review – an entire review devoted to this book – in Arts & Opinion. (Source 2 – giving us non-passing coverage in multiple RS sources, which is what we seek to satisfy GNG). And whatever your personal difficulty with what you describe as (in your opinion) the politics of News Weekly it is an Australian current affairs magazine founded in 1941 that is a perfectly fine RS to rely on for the fact that the book has been reviewed in an RS. (Source 3 – more than we need at this point). And it was also discussed at significant length in the book (Source 4 – again, more than we need). This is fairly open-and-shut. And none of these discussions of the book are trivial, sentence-fragment mentions. Rather, each discusses both the contents of the book, and the writer's view of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your opinion that I should have named every source I found and explained why it was unreliable or trivial? Hasan is a short mention in an already-short opinion column. The mentions in the Free Lance-Star, Q&A, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram are also trivial (the latter two are interviews, too - "Spencer, whose latest book is Onward Muslim Soldiers, is now going to tell us how he feels about Muslims" is not significant coverage). As I've stated multiple times, the problem with News Weekly isn't its slant - after all, we accept Fox News as a basically reliable source - it's that it is not a newspaper but an organizational newsletter without the reputation for fact-checking which WP:RS requires. Citron is just reprinting a review from another think-tank without any RS qualifications; unreliable sources don't magically become reliable at second-hand. Arts and Opinion would probably not pass any kind of RS review either (as they don't write reviews in-house, they accept submissions - among other reasons). It's not the end of the world if Wikipedia doesn't cover every fringe anti-Muslim book out there; we don't have to bend or break our rules to give Robert Spencer another platform. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of sources added. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone with JSTOR access tell us if this contains a trivial mention or a substantial review? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's trivial (one of the things I referred to as "footnoted as an example of anti-Muslim rhetoric" above). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? It is one of the nine books that are the focus of the author's review. I'm just guessing -- but I think that when Mark was asking if it was a trivial mention, he may not have in mind -- as you responded -- whether it was in your opinion "anti-Muslim" or "pro-Muslim", but rather whether it was a trivial passing mention, or something more substantial. BTW, I've now reflected a couple of more reviews in the text of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I mean I actually read the article rather than looking at the first page, and the mention is trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That wasn't what you said -- see above. Could you perhaps cut and paste the text that relates to the book into the talk page? The article clearly identifies this book as one of the nine that are the subject of the review.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, well it looks like he tries to go over 9 books in 7 pages, so I tend to believe you that it was a trivial mention. I tend to think we should have lower inclusion guidelines for books than, say, BLPs or startup companies, but the references do seem to be fairly trivial here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nom has just deleted text, and a number of refs, from the article. All reviews of and reactions to this book. I restored the deletions -- see here to see the text and refs nom deleted. And I opened up talkpage discussion, asking that nom not again delete the text and refs. But nom has now deleted the text and the reviews refs, yet again. These include:

Mention of a March 2004 review of the book Onward in News Weekly, which stated that: "Spencer offers detailed, referenced accounts of how militant Muslims are at work in the West, and how many Western sympathisers have been duped by their words of peace and tolerance.... While we must do all we can to encourage Muslim moderation, we dare not ignore Muslim extremism. This book helps us to do both, and deserves a wide reading."

Mention that in her 2006 book The Indictment, Sabina Citron writes that the book Onward: "gives us a deep insight into the central political tenets of Islam." And she opines that the book should be "required reading" for all, but especially for the leaders in the West.

Mention that a 2008 review of the book Onward in Arts & Opinion by Bassam Michael Madany describes the book as a "much needed guide to understanding the true nature of Islam, and its attitude to the rest of the world".

--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies don't prohibit nominators, and those who have voiced delete opinions, from editing articles after they have gone on record that the article is beyond hope, beyond redemption. But almost all nominators avoid editing articles after they nominate them for deletion. In my experience of the few nominators who do erase references and otherwise make substantive editorial changes to articles they nominated for deletion -- during the ((afd)) period, many turn out to be blocked for sockpuppetry, chronic incivility, or other serious lapses from policy.
Although our nominator seems to be an experienced participant, they don't seem to realize that individuals with less ability to assume good faith than I have would interpret their edits as signs of bad faith. My sincere advice to our nominator would be to confine expressing their concerns over what they see as bad references in the ((afd)) they initiated. Geo Swan (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long Beach Press-Telegram reviewed it [25] "But investigative journalist Robert Spencer, in his new book ``Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, argues that what we call ``Islamic extremism stems from a straightforward reading of the Koran and interpretative Islamic texts. On Nov. 10, I interviewed Spencer." You have to pay to read the rest of the article. News Weekly offers a detailed review of the book. [26] So that's two reliable sources giving significant coverage to it. The book was seen as notable enough for the writer to be on CNN [27], they mentioning the book that got him chosen. The Washington Times mentions the book but the full article is hidden behind a paywall. The Washington Times : Muslims in the military, Washington Times - Sep 25, 2003, According to Robert Spencer, author of the new book "Onward Muslim Soldiers," the Air Force "in July 2002 asked for help recruiting Muslim chaplains from ... " Other things pop up as well from a Google news archive search(click the link at the top of the AFD, and add in "Spencer" to filter out any bad results). Altogether I'd say its an obvious keep. Dream Focus 18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrases in the WP:N guideline were not selected at random such that you can discard them if you decide on a lark that you don't want them to apply today. What is it about significant (ie. not "Spencer, a talking head whose latest book is..., said in an interview...") and reliable (ie. not the newsletter of an agenda-based organization) that you are having trouble comprehending? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:15, 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, T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient notability. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Demonstrate it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the sources are there for. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish the book were not notable, but the sources are otherwise. They're in the article, and discussed above. A request for further proof does not seem constructive. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- our nominator asks if he or she had an obligation to mention every review they found wanting in the nomination. Daily Times is a Pakistani newspaper I cite all the time. I certainly consider it a reliable source. Approximately half the article in the Daily Times is devoted to Spencer's book. So yes, I would appreciate an explanation as to why the nominator doesn't recognize this as a reliable source.
I agree with the original sentiment that the political orientation of an author does not erode a book's notability. Regenery, this book's publisher, only publishes books from a particular orientation. IIRC they are associated with that whole "Swift Boats" movement from 2004. But since the book is covered by reliable sources that is irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 955[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Aircrash criteria for a stand alone article.William 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -William 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wp:So fix it. The cited investigation report gives plenty of useful source material. It verifies that the manufacturer changed the aircraft design based on the investigation's findings to improve containment. The FAA's chronic foot dragging on AWDs to extant fleets of domestic design is no reason to delete the article.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to fix. See below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The occurrence isn't even mentioned in Aviation Safety Network.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it meets WP:AIRCRASH, that is for inclusion in the Boeing 777 or United Airlines articles, it fails to meet the WP:GNG for a stand-alone article (as specified by the appropriate section of WP:AIRCRASH). The information, if desired in one or both of those articles, can be added there - there is no need for a redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not that significant that it justifies a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 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 redirect to Jak and Daxter. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jak and Daxter Collection[edit]

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

While the article may pass the WP:GNG, there is more in determining what is an appropiate article than that. This article was brought up at WT:VG and generally agreed upon that it should be redirected or deleted. It was done so and reverted before a SPP was requested and done because of reverting. Once the RPP came off, it was reverted. I went and redirected yesterday in line with the consensus at WT:VG and it was reverted with a rational of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essentially. ∞陣内 Jinnai 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect. I posted a message on the creator's talkpage shortly before you AfDed this. I was hoping to talk some sense into him so he would understand why it can't be. Because it is a collection, it is held to a higher standard. It needs significant coverage in both development and reception which are exclusive to the collection, not the games inside of it. It is possible, but not at the moment as it is not even released yet. I told him to continue finding sources like he is doing, but in a sandbox in his userspace. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:31, 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) 01:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Blake. This is an HD remaster which can be covered in the Jak series page, much like the God of War Collections. It doesn't have enough distinguishing material to justify a separate page the same way that Ico + Shadow does. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. It is fine and does not need to be deleted. It's a good page giving information for people new to the series and planning on buying the collection, and more will be added after the game is released. This should stay put, because once the game is released, more sections will be added, including reception. (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That logic flies directly in the face of WP:CRYSTAL.∞陣内 Jinnai 02:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jak and Daxter. It is all redundant to the material in all the other articles. --MuZemike 01:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Gehring[edit]

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

Article does not conform to Wikipedia standards and does not provide sufficient meaningful information about Frederic Gehring. Issildur (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does have a link to a substantial NYT obituary as well as a paywalled Time article. These and various books accessible through the above Google Books link look enough to confirm notability. I agree that the quality of the article isn't great, but that is a matter for normal editing improvement rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- U.S. Navy chaplain lieutenant (later captain) at Guadalcanal does not meet WP:Soldier and recipient of the Legion of Merit (although first chaplain to Orlando Sentinel & Presidential Unit Citation to all members of the First Marine Division; author of 1962 A Child of Miracles does not meet WP:Author, nor does portrayal in 1960's The Gallant Hours. National chaplain of the 1st Marine Division Association, and of the Catholic War Veterans. However, obit in The New York Times, Newsday, & Philadelphia's The Inquirer (previous mention) might pass the presumption of notability and the presumption of the existence of offline sources, but Time magazine article is about 'miracle child' (rescued by him). Article is currently full of unreferenced ubsubstantiated unencylopedic uns. Not a hoax, not an attack page, WP:TNT only as a last option. Dru of Id (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is basically incoherent, but salvageable and its subject does seem to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dru of Id and multiple mentions in books about the Guadalcanal Campaign. Nomination is based on quality concerns (fixable and in fact already partly fixed by editing) rather than valid AfD grounds. -- 202.124.74.181 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this articles only need are more citations for verication, and when the citations are added only have to wait to eliminate from the AfD list.. Thundersport (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GNG. AfD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative cosmology[edit]

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

No evidence that this concept meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. The original version of the article explicitly claimed that the concept was made up on the day this article was created. I'm fairly certain that the article creator is the person who came up with this theory. Prod was removed by the article creator with a "reference to blog" added. I'm on the fence as to whether this falls under G11. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Grillo7 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense. "Original Research" (but, no originality and certainly not research). No sources of any kind other than a mention of a blog by "Edge", presumably the same person as the author "Edgemeister". No hint of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, OR and verging on the utter bollocks. ukexpat (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As said before, fails WP:OR, WP:GNG, and it feels like a WP:G11 (Specially near the end there with a blurb about the blog.) -Fumitol|talk|cont 17:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW delete, invented nonsense, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gibberish. Puzl bustr (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. --Lambiam 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete this rubbish already. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete. Someone get rid of this messy article already! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:22, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn to allow time for improvements. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GTspirit[edit]

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

I cannot find anything that proves its notability, therefore fails WP:WEB, does not have any reliable third party sources to prove so otherwise. I am willing to withdraw this nomination if anybody proves me wrong otherwise. Donnie Park (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the creator of this page I was wonder what can be done to the content to improve it so that the article is deleted ?

I was also wondering in what way the content and sources differ from other similar websites wiki pages (e.g. Jalopnik?) I use Jalopnik as an example as it's article mainly sources from Jalopnik itself, similar to this page.

How would you go about references printed articles in magazine's? As the collaboration between GTspirit and prestigecars.de sees one of their road reviews printed in prestigecars magazine every quarterly issue. User:Dave logic (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth considering the notability guidelines of WP:WEB and get your article to meet these guidelines, articles survive them because they follow these guidelines. Donnie Park (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One the other hand, I am withdrawing this nomination to give the editor time to meet notability criterias. Donnie Park (talk) 20:25, 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 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porthcawl mid-air collision[edit]

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

A private and a military plane collide. Tragic but not notable per WP:Aircrash. William 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -William 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad but minor event. Fails WP:Aircrash. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, these were NOT military aircraft, both had civil registrations. This event received major international coverage at the time, and changes were made as a direct result of the accident per the AAIBs recommendations. AIRCRASH and GNG are both met. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there persistent coverage beyond the initial burst of news? This might be worth noting in, say, the Air Experience Flight article, but I'm not sure it justifies its own. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm fairly sure there was a bit of coverage when the AAIB report was released. 16:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete although sad as it involved young cadets it is not really notable as a military training accident, the bit about improved collision avoidance can be mentioned as a one-liner in the Grob article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 11:04, 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash[edit]

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

Small private plane crash. Tragic but not notable per WP:Aircrash William 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -William 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another sad but minor event. Fails WP:Aircrash. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In terms of U.S. aviation accidents, this is notable. This also received significant media coverage at the time. Michael5046 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWP:NOTNews covers this crash. The media coverage was routine and of limited duration.- William 13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 14 died. Qantasplanes (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe standards for private plane crashes is different than that of commercial aviation. Fatalities doesn't make it automatically notable unless there is someone notable who dies in the crash. This accident doesn't meet that criteria.- William 13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no apparent persistence beyond the "hey, this'll sell papers" stories. There were no WP-notable people involved in the accident, and no changes to regulations or procedures were made; the pilot failed to add deicer to the fuel, and this pilot error took 13 other people with him - but, while tragic, this is not a WP-notable crash. Fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no long term notability after the initial press coverage per notnews. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not a directory of air crashes. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic (singer)[edit]

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

Though it seems like she should be more notable, I'm really not finding "significant coverage" for this person. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grammy-nominated artist[28] who has received plenty of coverage, e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. --Michig (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would cover point 8 of WP:NMUSIC, but I don't think that's sufficient. It'd be one thing if she had a charted album or single, or if she was an integral part of a particularly notable band, but by itself being nominated doesn't mean she's notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination itself doesn't guarantee notability, but it's patently obvious that the subject meets both the GNG and criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person meets WP:MUSICBIO (criteria 1 and 8 at a minimum) and WP:GNG, as demonstrated above by User:Michig. Additional coverage found at The New York Times [40], Exclaim! [41] and The A.V. Club [42]. Gongshow ^Talk 01:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets MUSICBIO and GNG, per above evidence. Cavarrone (talk) 12:34, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cathal Lordan[edit]

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

Semi-pro football player who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Number 5 7 14:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Never played professionally and no significant coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played professionally at the highest professional level available in Ireland. See: [43], [44]. Represented Ireland in several national youth teams ([45]). Even played with Cork City in the money loaden Champion League qualifiers ([46]). Rejecting football leagues from smaller countries as not being fully professional is a biased opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is irrelevant that he played at the highest level in Ireland - what matters is whether he played in a fully professional league, and he has not. Youth caps do not confer notability, only appearances at full international level (per WP:NFOOTBALL). This is not "biased", it is realistic that players playing in semi-professional leagues are less notable than their professional counterparts. Number 57 16:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a biased opinion, due to that fact that is does not take the local circumstances into account. And it creates a very unfair difference between big countries and smaller countries. The players of Luton Town F.C. still have their own articles, while the club plays in a not fully professional league (fifth tier!). Maybe time for a clean up there? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are misrepresenting things - not all Luton players have articles - only those that have played in fully professional leagues. Number 5 7 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the point is, this "unfair difference" (Night of the Big Wind) is known here as notability. A player who has been written about in a national newspaper gets a Wikipedia article and the player who is not reported about doesn't. If he plays in the Olympics then he will meet the criteria. Until then.... Cloudz679 20:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It then... should you have read the souces I had added already. As far as I know is the Irish Times a national newspaper. But let me guess: disqualified because the article is not only about Lordan. Maybe this one, or this one, or this one or this one good enough? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still doesn't change the fact that he has not played in a fully professional league. Number 57 08:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mr. Lorgan satiesfies WP:GNG, regardless of the league he plays in. Why do you give me the feeling that nationality issues play a role here? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, so now you've stooped to making unfounded personal accusations? If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd be fully aware that I have AfD'd semi-pro American, Croatian, English and Scottish footballers amongst others - nationality isn't important - passing WP:NFOOTBALL is. Number 5 7 10:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comment above. Cloudz 679 20:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:24, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Younas Afandi[edit]

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

Article was PRODded and deleted in 2007, and was recreated in 2010 without any substantial difference. Rationale was "Expired PROD, concern was: A good faith effort to validate the claims of this article was not successful, fails WP:N and WP:V". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found (under this and varied English spellings) of this supposedly "famous" person in gnews and gbooks that is not a wp mirror. Zero refs, as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not a famous person. Thundersport (talk) 17:17, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Guerra[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article creator actually did a good job of arguing for deletion when they removed the PROD: "This team is just forming and all players should be given WIKI pages. I happen to know a lot about Michael Guerra since he grew up in my hometown but everyone on this team should have an opportunity to be given a WIKI page." This is a totally non-notable player in a regional league. Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NHOCKEY. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and prod reason. Federal Hockey League doesn't qualify for presumed notability and don't see any other reason why he would meet WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. Scoring the first goal in the history of an organization is notworthy and should be included in WIKI. This article does meet criteria in WP:NHOCKEY. elitehockeyprospect[[User talk:hockeyeliteprospect|/_What? 13:40, 23 January 2012 (EST)

DO NOT Delete - Per nom and prod reason. Federal Hockey League doesn't qualify for presumed notability but scoring the first goal in the history of a franchise doesWP:N. User:elitehockeyprospect (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Delete: The Federal League is semi-pro, and well under the threshold of notability for individual players. There is no criterion of WP:NHOCKEY under which Guerra qualifies, nor is scoring the first goal in a team's history any part of those criteria. To quote WP:ONEEVENT, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." If the article's creator would like to submit reliable, independent sources qualifying the subject under WP:GNG, we'd of course like to see them. Ravenswing 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG or NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. But given that he is already 22 and has never even played in the CHL or ECHL, I have my doubts. Patken4 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per User:Ravenswing and User:Patken4. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements and it looks like he likely never will. But if he does he can easily be recreated. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 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?} 14:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of large reentering space debris[edit]

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

Notability of spacecraft reentries is subjective and mostly controlled by media scaremongering rather than any objective criteria; I therefore believe that this is not an encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 12:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. You question why such incidents are reported, but that doesn't change the fact that these were all large man-made objects that reentered Earth's atmosphere, and I don't see how the purported subjectivity in why that is reported would translate into subjectivity in what is reported. Plus there's the fact that this list is maintained by the Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies (the first cite in the article), not exactly a media scaremongering machine from what I can tell. postdlf (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I recognize that this topic is often tinged with media hysteria, this article very specifically avoids that. It easily meets WP:LISTN and as postdf points out, is based on a reliable source. The Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies is an independent organization involved in federally funded defense and civilian space contracts. That organization has been involved in every launch vehicle in the U.S. inventory in the past several decades. The list is quantitative, based on mass, not subjective nor is it based on media hysteria. I did take the WP:BOLD move of adding Phobos-Grunt to the list, with references to it's de-orbit date and mass (within the tolerances of the rest of the list). If there are still concerns about the reliability of this source, CORDS is recognized as the experts on this, when something falls to Earth, CORDS is called upon to analyze it. LA Times article on CORDS. This organization is also recognized by NASA for their research on space junk Space Debris resource list, NASA HQ--RadioFan (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added an additional (book) source for mass and de-orbit dates on some of the larger objects (space stations).--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both notable and verifiable. Grillo7 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see what makes a large piece of debris falling to earth more notable than a small piece doing so, other than the media getting hysterical about how it is probably going to hit something (which it never does). And while we're at it, how are "large" and "debris" defined for the purpose of this list? Why, for example, is 1973-027B (a 39 tonne S-II) not included? --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a collaborative encyclopedia, I of course have no problem with your adding S-II to this list with proper citation. If you'd be more comfortable with a more precise definition of what does and does not go on the list, make a proposal, perhaps 10,000 kilograms (22,000 lb). Technically "large", in the world of space debris, is generally defined as anything over 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) so I dont think we want to use that. The article wikilinks to space debris which provides a sufficient definition.--RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the problems we had with the launch system comparison lists, I would be somewhat concerned about specifying an arbitrary cutoff which cannot be backed up by reliable sources as being used elsewhere in the field. It is also odd that the article excludes things like ATVs since they were never debris, despite the fact that their reentries were identical to those of, for example, the defunct Salyut stations. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable topic, per frequent news coverage of each major event. Yes, the article needs to include a definition of what is meant by "large". The NASA Orbital Debris FAQ defines it as any debris larger than 10 cm, which to me is still pretty small (compared to the examples given). Regards, RJH (talk) 21:38, 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. The consensus is that the sources do not meet the independent/reliable criteria expected of sources. There is also a consensus that insufficient evidedence exists to show that WP:BAND is met. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Død Beverte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of article deleted at afd (21 Aug 11) with only superficial changes. Only real change has been to add a long laundry list of so called playlists. Despite the url suggesting otherwise they are not playlists. they are also not independent coverage. They are just an indication someone is trying to use the internet for promotion, as someone here is trying to do with wikipedia but Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Album not on important label. Calling nine inch nails an associated act is laughable attempt to assert importance and doesn't help as notability is not inherited. He still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the other multitude of references they are either trivial coverage (like the allmusic listing), are primary sources or press releases, are not significant coverage or are not reliable sources. See previous afd for more on sources. Nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~I was very disappointed to see that there was no consensus for deletion of Dethcentrik due to one editor not looking closely at the sources referenced. In particular~~ there are a lot of sites which allow user submitted content and these can be used on wikipedia to stack a bunch of superficial references to add legitimacy to the topic. The same thing has certainly been done here. It is a clue when you see 15 references in the same place that someone is stacking in order to make up for the subject's general lack of notability. The article does not actually establish notability. I will note that it has been deleted before for this exact same reason. It is common for small-time uknown garage bands to create a wikipedia page for themselves in order to promote the band and give themselves a certain notoriety. This is just such an attempt at promotion, only with more meaningless references. Regardless of motives which cannot themselves constitute a viable reason for deletion, the article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Not notable. see Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability, Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and especially Wikipedia:Bombardment. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has added quite a few new sources since deletion. I encourage the person making the final decision to keep or delete to review the actual changes since deletion rather than simply taking other editors' word for it. And as for the unimportant label comment, I would like the closing editor to research the definition of a major label, then see this. I would also encourage the closing editor to look at the sources cited for themselves, and to please look at the tone, insertion of opinions, and any statements of insulting nature the other editors are relying on. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we pretend IODA is a major label and is the label that released Beverte's album it is still only one album, less than the two asked for by wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article cites reviews, interviews, and yes some press releases, but they are not the majority by any means, and I see no bias at all that would indicate that this article in created for promotion. I would also like to point out WP:NOTINHERITED does state an exception for books, films, and music. The different playlists are on the sites of separate radio stations, and I see no way the urls indicate that they aren't playlists, although it does look like they are from the same supplier, but many radio stations are owned by the same company, and many often have music supplied from the same source, saying they are the same is like saying all reviews are the same since at some point down the line they likely obtained the music from the same source, since the artist is at some point the source of their own music, and their label distributes it. Taking into account the tone of some of the editors that favor the article's deletion, I would question wether this deletion discussion was created in good faith, and whether those same editors should be considered conflicts of interest -97.112.152.209 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- re not inherited, Beverte is not a book, film or musical recording. re playlists, play lists have what was played listed, not the case here. re coi, what outside interest do you think I am advancing? More importantly on good faith and coi, this afd is about wether Beverte should have an article, it's not about me, read WP:ATTP. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references which are represented in the article as radio playlists, they are not playlists, not only fail to establish any notability whatsoever, but they are yet more user-submitted content and therefore not reliable, though reliablity isn't much of an issue since the pages referenced don't have any content to speak of. I can submit my "band" via the same form and my band name will show up on dozens of identical websites with different radio call letters at the top. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Dufbeerforme and Gene93K: Sources 8,9, 10, and 11 were not present on the article when it was deleted. My understanding is that some online metal magazines qualify as reliable sources, while others do not. Are you saying that none of these qualify as WP:RS? Or that they aren't independent? Or that they don't discuss the subject in detail? Because if any of those are reliable, they seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number 8 was directly addressed by Metal lunchbox in the first afd, it was ref number 10 in the stable version linked to. 9 is not a reliable source, see their about us, not a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". 10 and 11 are primary sources, they are "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", one of the things are not considered "reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" according to wp:music. both are also a blogs, not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting editor please note that in this debate editors asking for this article's deletion are using acceptance of submission of music itself and news tips as justification for calling a source "user-submitted." One editor involved in this debate also did notify another editor whose first contribution to this article was an attempt at speedy deletion of this afd, and one editor involved has since deleted many sources, please do check the list of changes to see which sources were deleted during the course of this afd, and gauge their reliability for yourself. Certain statements are also misleading "is not a book, film or musical recording" in WP:NOTINHERITED I do not see the word "recording" anywhere, simply music. BusyWikipedian (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed remove several references from the article which I explained in full in the edit comments. If you wish to challenge those edits you should do so on that articles talk page an not use my edits as a way to imply some malicious intent or a violation of common procedure. The references were removed because they were unreliable, redundant, and did not provide any content relevant to the article. references are for verifying information found in the article and to provide the reader with a place to explore further information on the topic. The more than a dozen webpages cited after the name of one album did not aid in this effort in the slightest. But then, anyone can look at the edit history and see this very clearly for themselves. I was notified of this discussion on my talk page because I was one of very few people that has been involved with this article. That is standard procedure. As for "user-submitted" content, I will point out that content on a website which is submitted by users as opposed to credentialed editorial staff, is typically not considered a reliable source of information. Please see WP:SPS and look at the sources for yourselves. There should be no question that the sources I have removed do not pass WP:RS. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: exceptions to "Notability is not inherited." BusyWikipedian, You are misreading the guidelines. The exception referred to above is in WP:MUSIC and reads as follows:

"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

The subject of this article unquestionably does not meet that criteria. Otherwise, notability is not inherited. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having gone over the sources, which ones are anyone claiming are (a) reliable, (b) independent, (c) non-user-submitted and (d) discuss the subject in significant detail? Ravenswing 10:03, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is covered in plenty of reliable, third party sources, including being reviewed which is indisputably a third party opinion and the IODA, which is a distribution outlet for many indie labels is owned by Sony Music. Granted, I would say this article needs to be written far better, and certainly it would not hurt to cite more reliable independent sources, but for those simply tagging what needs to be fixed at the top of the page will suffice. As for the playlists that were deleted during changes to this page during the time period of this AfD (I'm including the first arguments at the top of this page as the beginning of the debate) I do believe them to be credible, but since they appear to be from the same source, finding that source and simply citing that instead seems much wiser than citing all of them.164.47.161.254 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That IODA is partly owned by SONY does not make any Beverte recording a major-label release. The issue is not improving the sources，because those other sources do not appear to exist. In the future the subject may become notable and receive in-depth coverage by notable, independent, third-party sources. At that time maybe we can consider the subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. again, a brief reading of WP:BAND and WP:RS would answer any questions about whether or not the subject may be considered notable with a definitive no. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And which do you think are reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of Beverte? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to simply point out that WP:BAND states that for those outside "mass-media traditions" "is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable subculture." He is covered frequently in publications devoted to the heavy metal subculture. I myself would qualify his interview with HeavyHardMetalMania as reliable. The IODA is not only "partially" owned by Sony, it is fully owned by Sony, I refer you to the multiple sources cited on both the IODA Wikipedia page, and the Sony Music Wikipedia page, rather than list all the sources in this AfD. And seeing as he is the main composer of Dethcentrik link, I would say he fits the requirement for composers in addition to individual notability. BusyWikipedian (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal is in the "mass-media traditions". The album was not released by IODA. What Dethcentrik song is notable? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: IODA - regardless of what portion of IODA is owned by SONY music, its missing the point to claim that using IODA to distribute your music on the internet makes it a "major-label release". IODA is not, in fact a proper record label in the way that SONY Music of Cash Money records is, they are more like Jamendo, they have a website that allows unsigned artists and anyone with a digital audio recorder to distribute their music online. Even if it were Sony music themselves signing Beverte, WP:BAND requires two (2) major-label releases to establish notability in this fashion. Also HeavyHardMetalMania is definitely not a reliable source, see WP:BLOGS. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 16:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been open for 18 days, and was already closed once 10 days ago.[47]BusyWikipedian (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been re-included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions after being dropped off. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:NMUSIC, WP:BLP and WP:GNG. This page isn't about a band; it's about a living person, and the threshold for BLPs should normally be higher than album discussion and track listings on Billboard and Allmusic. Each source fails WP:IRS either because it's a blog or because it fails to directly detail the artist. No sources which meet the standard for sourcing on a BLP. No ~~interviews, no~~ profiles. (on edit, The Gauntlet does produce a brief interview, and based on its own page information does appear to be more than a blog but less than a RS as described by policy and guideline). BusterD (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether this changes your vote or not BusterD, I would like to mention that a multitude of sources were deleted in bad faith during the course of this AfD, including, but not limited to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4802015/bio , http://www.heavyhardmetalmania.net/2011/11/dd-beverte-uncensored-interview.html , Adriaan, Germain (2011). Død Beverte. Germany: Brev Publications. ISBN 978-6137074466., http://remix.nin.com/play/mix?id=24150, http://darkdoomgrinddeath.blogspot.com/2011/10/dethcentrik-interview.html, and I am restoring some of them as we speak, and will be editing the article with additional sources as well most likely.BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the page, but I'm not swayed. IMDB isn't usually a RS for BLPs and this one says sourced from "Official Representative" so it fails independence even if. Two of the sources you list are clearly blogs and the nin.com source is merely the artist's work. If this were a band, I'd be slightly more inclined toward a keep outcome, but as a BLP, we have a strong need to protect both the pedia and the subject with WP:IRS. I can't find a single source which meets IRS fully, with the possible exception of the interview linked on The Gauntlet. BusterD (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Weekly[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this publication. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. current sourcing is a press release and their own site. I didn't find anything better. nothing satisfying WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability in article, no RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's an unrelated (and perhaps better known) U.S. Christian publication by the same name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very local, does not meet WP:GNG. -- œ ^™ 05:49, 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 keep. Sandstein 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Legal Center[edit]

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

Article presents no evidence of notability; ((db-group)) was removed per claim that it has coverage somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Name some. A google news search could easily catch descriptive phrases not referring to the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Within the last 72 hours? Boston Globe Politico Fortune/CNN Bloomberg News ABC News ABC 7 Los Angeles. Of course, with the 2012 Presidential primaries in full swing, and this group being a campaign watchdog that's like shooting fish in a barrel. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Sufficient coverage in Legal New Online, L.A. Times, Christian Science Monitor, Deseret News, New York Sun and New York Times to scrape past WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's probably enough. Could you edit the article to reflect the coverage there, or it will be nominated again. The article still provides no indication of notability, either in the text or in its references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess not. They all quote the group (except one, which quotes a founder), but don't say much about the group. This includes to the two references in the article. We would need to find a source which says something about the group. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coverage is limited - minimal even - but there's enough there to at least verify what the centre is, and show that its activities draw press attention. For the record, I have no axe to grind here; it bothers me not a whit whether this stays or not. In my opinion, there's enough out there to pass WP:GNG (I've only linked a few of the sources found), but others' interpretation of the guideline may be stricter. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this is bugging me now. Turns out my opinion is bullshit and I'm actually wrong. Arthur is right; none of this coverage is really sufficient, even taken together. I hereby drop the stick and abstain; please disregard my earlier !vote. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused what other coverage would be expected. They are a notable political watchdog organization that puts out research about fundraising and advocates, especially via filings with the FEC, to keep political fundraising groups in check. WP:Notability doesn't require glamor; they ain't getting a six page spread in Cosmo any day soon. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage in gbooks. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note bene, I've added 7 more refs, could easily add more, but I don't feel like tackling the ((cite journal)) template at this hour. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is required is an article about the organization, rather than a brief mention of and/or quote from the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A well known political organization isn't non-notable simply because it's too boring to fill copy in a magazine. I can dig up a dozen refs that explain that it's a non-profit campaign watchdog. What else is there really to say? Do we need a glossy fold out spread of "Ed who runs the copy machine"? It's silly season to apply the same deletion standards here as we would to a garage band while Campaign Legal Center is off filing amicus briefs with the Supreme Court and getting mentions in a dozen different articles about the current Presidential campaign each week.

That said, I can add more refs, all attesting to it's un-flashy notability. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's wrong. A political organization is (probably) non-notable if reliable sources don't talk about it. We're not restricted to "news" magazines (supported by advertising, so boring items get dropped). If you can find a reliable (perhaps peer-reviewed) political science magazine or journal which talks about the organization, that would probably be enough.

I haven't checked your new sources to see if any of them talk about the organization, as you seem unable to understand that that is a requirement for WP:NOTABILITY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. WP:GNG specifically says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Policy advocacy groups never want to be the main topic of a news story; they want the policy they are advocating to be the story. How do you think reporters even get these stories in which you, apparently, dismiss the Campaign Legal Center's role as trivial? The CLC calls them up and says, "hey, look at what Karl Rove is up to"[48] or "look at John Edwards's smarmy use of his own charity organizations."[49] And they get a little blurb decrying it all in paragraph five. Maybe you think all these reporters from various major news organizations, merely looking for filler, just happen to all pick up a D.C. phone book and randomly dial up this completely non-notable political watchdog out of the blue in order to ask them for a blurb of their opinion on something that hasn't even been reported yet? You know, accidentally a dozen times on a good week!

Don't be naive, Arthur Rubin. Just because we are a tertiary source doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to the puppet masters of secondary sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That teachable moment given, I believe the sources I have added do attest to notability, talking about when it was founded, who the founder was (just some major Presidential candidate, nothing notable there), the original president, the current policy advisor, etc. No word yet on how Ed is doing making copies though. :p -- Kendrick7^talk 03:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources added by Kendrick7. The subject appears to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:52, 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 redirect to Florida State University. Consensus seems clear enough here that a relist wouldn't be required. At this time, the information in the article is indeed unsourced, but if it can be sourced in future, a merge of some of the information may be appropriate, obviously ensuring it's attributed appropriately. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State University – Spain Branch[edit]

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

I tried searches for this in various formats, but could not find substantial, independent, multiple RS coverage. The article itself has zero refs, and has been tagged for this fault for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Florida State University. Sounds like an advertisment is its current form. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Were you intending to suggest redirect? The challenged text is all non-referenced, and therefore I believe not appropriate for merger.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are the facts, this article is currently mislabeled. There is no FSU, "Spain Branch" but there is however a Spain Study Center ([50]) which is what this wikipedia article is talking about. So yes it does exist, its hard to gauge notability however. --KightofFivePillars (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The supplied diff refers to it as "Valencia Study Center". This was the lone passing reference to that name that I found in gnews. This was the only thing I could find that had as much as a snippet in gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to main FSU article. Sources clearly exist and the programme is listed on the FSU web site and in news coverage. -- 202.124.74.158 (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a keep, we would need substantial multiple coverage in RSs. Non-independent coverage such as mention by the school itself would indicate that it exists, but would not indicate wp notability. Similarly, a mention by the US Embassy that "The Solomonts also visited the Florida State University (FSU)’s Valencia study center, where they engaged with American students studying abroad" is a bare, passing, non-substantial mention that fails to discuss the subject of the article in substantially, and therefore also does not confer notability on it. As to a merge, I challenge all the text (if that is not already clear; which I think it is), and it remains without inline citations, and therefore the challenged text should not be re-created in a future merge, as that would be at odds with WP:CHALLENGED, which states: "any material challenged ... must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, you are completely misunderstanding WP:V, or suggesting a radical change in Wikipedia policy. The fact that you "challenge" something is no obstacle to a merge. It seems to me that this material (possibly in an abbreviated form) should exist somewhere, either in this article or in the FSU article. Since it is clear that reliable sources exist, at least to the level required for a brief section in the FSU article, your "challenge" appears to be tendentious. -- 202.124.74.214 (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd -- wp:v is a core policy, and a challenge here is completely appropriate. If you wish to add inline citations, as required by the policy, you or anyone else is free to do so. If you wish to do that at this article, you can take upon yourself the movement of the article history if the article is in fact merged. Or you can create the information, with the article history, at the target, and avoid that. BTW -- have we met before, with you perhaps editing under a different IP address, and/or user name?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 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 redirect to Lockleys, South Australia. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lockleys North Primary School[edit]

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

School through grade 7 (5-12 year olds). Zero refs. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The problem with this entry is that it lacks references. That is not a reason wave the sword. Its far from being not notable. There are numerous less attributed schools in WP than this one. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on Lockleys North Primary School produced ~21,000 hits. Is that not-notable in your opinion? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup with correct references has been added. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lockleys, South Australia per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. What makes any primary school notable? There any many that need to be deleted which is not the approach that should be taken. Also this is notable given that several other primary schools were eliminated in the 1990s because of costs and this primary school was still kept by the SA Government. Even your redirection to Lockleys, South Australia is poor. The article only has one reference and the primary school has three. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources that you added do you view as independent of the subject of the article?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references added to the article are for verifiability purposes. If you remember there were none. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that it exists, in my opinion. The question we are facing however is whether it is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article. Non-independent refs do not indicate notability, per wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references from the South Australian Government DEPS are independant. What makes a primary school considered notable??? Is Rose_Park_Primary_School notable? How about Mitcham Primary School? Again my rap about your request for deletion is that rather than clean up the article and improve it you're ready to wave the sword. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as sure as you are that the school is independent of the Department of Education, for purposes of satisfying our notability provisions. If it were, and notability were based on what you have supplied, every single primary school under the Department would qualify as notable. As to some of your other points, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GOOGLEHITS.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Education website is the not same as the primary schools website and therefore it is independent from one another which in this case makes it a secondary source covering WP:N. And I contend that every primary school in South Australia is worthy of having an entry in Wikipedia, but whether the quality of the entry is acceptable is another question. While you have marked this school for deletion why haven't you gone and marked all the other primary schools in South Australia for deletion? Thanks for your references. You should also check WP:INN. Also Google is used in many instances in Wikipedia to determine a resolution. e.g. In the debate about the naming of Kiev vs Kyiv Google was an underlining reason why Kiev remained as the entry. See Talk:Kiev/naming. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds (thousands?) of articles on primary schools, kindergartens, grammar schools, and other schools junior to the high school level have had their stand-alone article either deleted or redirected at AfD. A number are being considered right now at AfD: see here. The problem with your raw google hit count is that -- as distinct from a discussion as to "which term is used more" -- an AfD discussion focuses on multiple, substantial, non-trivial, instances of independent RS coverage; not google counts. BTW -- the AfD discussion is also not over the state of the article, but the existence of appropriate coverage. Even if the coverage is not reflected in the article, if it were to exist that would suffice. Also, there does not seem to be consensus support on wp for your notion that all primary schools (or all in your area of interest) are inherently notable. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is going to be a RFC brought up in the WP:SCHOOL as far as what is notable. Hence it is quite debatable as to what is notable and what is not. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional independent references have been added to the article. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see WP:GNG. Especially its focus on "significant coverage" which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I see no evidence that there's overwhelming amounts of sourcing, enough to ignore precedent. The type of sourcing that isn't local, routine, or fleeting (incidentally, that type of sourcing is needed for any article). It gets Google hits? That doesn't mean significant coverage. The "well, there are other schools argument" is also inherently weak Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't surprise me that there is an inherent desire to delete rather than trying to WP:SAVE. I would be in shock if an attempt was made. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the... I didn't even vote delete... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was a general statement and your position has been noted... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - if you are so into this AfD then don't forget to AfD the images used in the article. I don't particularly want to start cleaning up those orphans. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Schools are centres of their communities, and are often the most permanent and notable sites within their communities. This school is of sufficient age that it is a clear keep as far as I'm concerned. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can you point to the policy or guideline that says age should be used as a determiner of notability? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Emphasis added. The education point is obvious (but I suspect that you'll ask): every kid in the school community attends the school. In regards to history, the school has been around for long enough that it has contributed to the history of its community. I'm sure that the Brudder Andrusha can write content to account for this.

Have you found a consensus generated policy or guideline that says that schools are "inherently non-notable" (your words), yet?

If you haven't, then I'd ask you to stop badgering keep votes. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been affirmed hundreds of times by dozens of different editors and closing admins that schools like this are non-notable, as another editor noted and you seem to have ignored. Furthermore, being a local school does in no way amount to a significant or demonstrable impact in education or history, either here or at the Wisconsin school that also needs to be deleted. And if I am badgering keep votes (which I'm not), you are not only, but misinterpreting and ignoring policy and previous consensus. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your quote doesn't answer my question...it doesn't equate being old with having a significant impact on history. When it says significant impact, it isn't referring to a small local area Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you've got a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATitis or maybe it's WP:IDONTLIKETHAT syndrome? You can say that I'm "misinterpreting" and "ignoring" policy, but I can say that you still haven't found the policy that says that schools are "inherently non-notable" and that, therefore, this is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE on your part.

Schools are, by definition, the centres of their community, therefore significant. That's the end of the argument. You can continue to badger me if you like. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan. Just so I'm clear -- is it your view that, under existing wp policy, all schools are notable, and therefore all school articles should be kept? (And on that basis, you would !vote keep at every school AfD at which you !vote?)--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen me vote in that way? No. So that is not my view. So stop trying to characterise me as being indiscriminate. Cheers.

My view is that schools of a sufficient age, of a sufficient enrolment, or who have attained sufficient status (i.e., schools that do something significantly different from other schools) are of significance to their community and therefore fulfill that sentence I have quoted above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I was simply trying to understand you. I did not characterize you -- I asked a question, as I wasn't clear after reading your prior post. Thanks for the clarification. If I might trouble you a bit further, to understand the bounds of your explanation -- what in your view constitutes an age at which a school should be kept? (I note that this school was established in 1960). Or the enrollment level that would lead to a keep? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I consider 50 years to be old enough in the Australian context (i.e., it before Whitlam, during/before most of the immigration waves). Being that this doesn't relate to this AfD, shall we take this to my/your talkpage? I'll respond once I'm back from a work appointment. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- so this 51-year-old institution squeaked by your test. I thought my query applies in part to this AfD, but as you wish. My initial goal is to understand where you are coming from. That understanding no doubt assists the closer as well in assessing/weighing !votes. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe 50, 75 or any number of years = automatic notability is a non-starter. First of all because age isn't really linked to notability in policy, as I said above. Second, in practice with schools, 50 years means that a lot of cookie-cutter Baby Boomer suburban American schools would be deemed notable (and 75 means a lot of cookie-cutter WPA ones). Thirdly, any year picked is arbitrary. Why don't you follow NRVE and find reliable, in-depth non-local sources instead of making up some automatic notability rule? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" is understood, even if it's ridiculous and runs counter to guideline, consensus and practice. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not consensus or practice. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, which reads "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD". Sounds like consensus and practice to me. As for guideline, as Epeefleche notes on his page, there really isn't one either way Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go through that sentence and look and highlight in your mind the words: "MOST", and "DON'T". Thanks for bringing that up. Otherwise, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere except continuing to demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of how to conduct yourself at AfD. I have attempted to work these issues through with you, and failed, so I'll look to other avenues to try to bring about improvement with how you interact here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. By "complete misunderstanding", you mean "not completely agreeing with you". Neither of us have much policy, but I've got the weight of hundreds of prior consensus backing me up. Some "complete misunderstanding" Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lockleys, South Australia per the normal way of dealing with schools that don't meet the requirements of WP:ORG such as this one. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it doesn't meet WP:ORG. There are more independent secondary sources in the the article compared to where the redirect is. The independent sources include political parties, church organizations and sports clubs. Proving that the school is attractive community and notable place. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to respond to every comment you disagree with here - it's bordering on hectoring other editors, and is actually damaging your cause. I don't see how mentions of the school in a local MP's press release and on community group websites constitute either the reliable sources or in-depth coverage needed to establish notability - quite the opposite in fact. You're welcome to disagree. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's taking this rather personally... I don't think you need to call it hectoring. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lockleys, South Australia, as is normally the case.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC).... and still redirect after taking into consideration the new edit mentioned directly below.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the latest edit, there should be no doubt about the notability of the school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how that reference amounts to significant coverage. Looks to me like all it does is list the school's name. That really isn't enough to satisfy NRVE. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a key achievement for the school, per WP:ORG, and lends itself to the notability of the school. Whether the, source is a listing or an academic article doesn't make a difference top anyone but bring obtuse.

Particularly when you're just not going to agree on completely ideological grounds anyway, I'm going to ask you, again, to STOP your badgering and asking people to hold your hand and walk you through the minutiae of various notability guidelines and AfD approaches (like WP:BEGIN, which I am fully aware you refuse to align with) whenever anyone brings up anything that conflicts with your view that, for example, all Primary Schools are "inherently non-notable" (which you still haven't found policy or guideline for btw). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also am not convinced that this satisfies GNG -- the achievement is not at such a level as to convince me of it. Suggestion: let's try to keep focus on sources/articles/conventions, and steer clear of personal characterizations. This thread is already long enough without that.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't there is going to be anything, even updated information on the entry with any kind of references to convince a posse that was rounded up which has clear plans to delete. The school gets $2 million to build and its considered trivial and not notable enough. Getting close to the point of giving up on WP let alone opening my wallet on the next trivial donation drive. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lockleys, South Australia. Fails to meet the threshold of WP:ORG. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect as suggested. I really do not see sufficient notability here, though there is a little more than in most primary school articles,and the article was done competently. I recognize the nom. was in fact not asking for deletion, but a redirect, but I think he was on balance right to take this here when it was challenged, because we are the only actually appropriate forum. We are in practice treating this as Articles for Discussion, and this is a better place for discussion than the article talk page, where more strictly it should handled. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that the bar for what is and is not notable in regards to primary schools is arbitrarily high in the minds of some editors. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan--I think it is accurate that, to the extent that this AfD is indicative, your view of what notability means, with regard to primary schools, may vary from the consensus view. I note that only 1 of the 8 editors here other than you think this should remain as a stand-alone article. I know you feel strongly that your view is the correct one. But perhaps you can acknowledge at the same time what the consensus view is -- and how it differs from yours -- as to when a primary school is sufficiently notable that an article should be kept. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many votes here that you can claim that my view differs all that much from the consensus view. While there are undoubtedly some who have voted legitimately, others of the above redirect votes seem to be drive-by's who have noticed the phrase "primary school" and voted accordingly in that they talk about what is commonly done without discussing (or even acknowledging) the sources that have been provided. Others came before the latest edit establishing that the school is one of 20 schools Australia-wide to win a particular grant. Then there's a predictable vote from someone who has the extreme misconception that all primary schools are "inherently non-notable". I'm pretty sure that there is no claim for notability so legitimate that would "save" a primary school article in the eyes of these individuals. Were I interested in WP:POINT, it'd be an interesting experiment to recast an article like North Sydney Girls High School (one of Australia's leading and most notable schools) as a primary school to see if it would survive AfD... I'd think it'd be doomed.

This isn't a clear win for your side, and, after all, AfD is not a straight out vote. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly Merge stuff to Lockleys, South Australia. The article is competently written, but primary schools generally are not considered notable enough on their own, and I don't see any reason why this school is unusual in that regard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:21, 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 redirect to The Host (novel)#Film adaptation. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Host (2013 film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, this article cannot exist until principal filming begins (which may be next month, maybe); even then, it isn't supposed to have an article unless the production itself has been covered extensively in reliable sources. Most of the sources in the article are only borderline reliable, if at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to The Host (novel)#Film adaptation per WP:NFF until topic notable in its own right. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no problem leaving behind a redirect. I expected resistance from the article creator, so I figured a deletion discussion was the best way to be sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just start a new page WHEN principal photography starts on February 13, 2012. Go ahead and delete this page, you'll see the exact same one back here in about three weeks, so I really don't see the point. User:Thehost1212 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2012 (EST)

If you do, I'll ask for it to be deleted again. WP:NFF says that films in production can only have articles after principal photography starts AND when the production itself is notable. None of the references provided so far provide any sense of notability to the production--all they do is establish who's directing and starring in the movie. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved your message earlier, and to answer your question, no I am not professionally attached to the movie. I am just a fan of the book, and of the upcoming movie, and thought that it needed some recognition. I have also provided two other sources that show when principal photography will start, and that also shows when the movie is going to be released. In addition to that, I have provided an external link to the IMDB page for the movie. I consider all my sources to be reliable, and I WILL start a new page the day that principal photography starts, if this one gets deleted. I don't understand why you're wasting your time on this when you don't need to be, but I guess that doesn't matter. User:Thehost1212 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (EST)

You're not understanding: it still won't be notable after photography starts. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't it be notable? User:Thehost1212 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2012 (EST)

It might be notable, but I think the point that Qwyrxian is making is that a film isn't automatically notable just because filming starts, notability still needs to be established through significant coverage in reliable sources. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 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 Delete per WP:SNOW. 28bytes (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of my little pony: friendship is magic friendship reports[edit]

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

Massive list of unreferenced original research. No encyclopedic value. Previously deleted twice. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there to show that the FR are notable outside of the series. There aren't any reliable sources that specifically discuss the reports to where a page like this could be justified. This is the type of thing that belongs in a MLPFIM wiki and not on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete, useless in-universe fancruft. Wikipedia is not a My Little Pony fansite. JIP | Talk 07:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are no independent sources writing about this subject, then there isn't any reason that Wikipedia should be the first place to gather this information. The proper place for a list of this sort is a "My Little Pony" fan site, not Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I did tell this (possibly young) editor to ask for advice and to read the WP:PRIMER. I've also suggested starting their own wiki for MLPFIM - there may even be one for MLP already. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, non-notable, fan cruft. Redirecting to Alpo would be another acceptable option from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 if evidence of previous deletion discussions can be unearthed. Otherwise, Delete : totally unsourced original research, beyond salvagable. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not AfDed before. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what does "Previously deleted twice" by the nominator mean? --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means it was speedy deleted twice within one hour the day before the AfD was filed. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why can't we just ((db-g4)) this and stop wasting everyone's time? --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because G4 is only for things that have been at AfD, MfD, or whatever with fd in 'em. This has only been speedied. Prod doesn't qualify for G4 either, because there's not been any discussion (other than insults on talkpages sometimes...). Peridon (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt for the above reasons, and because it has allegedly been recreated a couple of times. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already exists in its proper place: wikia:mlp:Friendship reports. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since we already have something like this on the FiM Wikia. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 22:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. incog (talk)
Speedy Delete Princess Derpy (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete if this doesn't count as cruft, I don't know what does! Mythpage88 (talk) 01:43, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Americus Abesamis[edit]

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

This is an article about an individual that lacks any significant coverage. He doesn't meet the notability standards for sumo wrestlers (WP:NSPORTS#Sumo) since his only experience is as an amateur. He also fails to meet the notability criteria as an actor--most of his roles are uncredited and the ones that aren't has him playing roles as "Bouncer", "Asian Bodyguard", and "Security Guard".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, NSPORTS and NACTOR. Passing mentions in a couple of minor news sources and one edition of Who's Who on TV are all I can find, everythig else is USERG. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NSPORTS, plus the article lacks good sources. Astudent0 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't an sportsman, I am fan of this sport, I search in all pages and don't find nothing related with this person. Thundersport (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Now that I think about it after reading the above posts, Americus may not be so notable after all. I still don't want to say delete, however. What author would? Tinton5 (talk) 01:55, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amychophobic[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google searches turned up nothing substantial enough to fulfill notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 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 01:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:06, 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 Merged to List of Diff'rent Strokes episodes#Season 8. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Front Page (Diff'rent Strokes)[edit]

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

This article is apparently the only one in Wikipedia about any of the 189 individual episodes of the TV series Diff'rent Strokes. Although it was the last episode, nothing here indicates that it was a proper series finale -- rather, it was just the episode after which production ended and the series was not renewed. There may be other episodes of this series that warrant individual articles because they have received coverage in independent sources, but I don't think this is one of them. The only external links provided are routine links to the episode's pages at TV.com and the Internet Movie Database. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diff'rent Strokes — assuming that the info isn't already there. A subsection on the final episode of this TV should would be worthwhile in that context. There is no sourcing and insufficient content to support coverage as a free-standing page, however... Carrite (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diff'rent Strokes, as a seperete section? 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above, doesn't deserve its own article without sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commment, not a lot of content, the two sentences can easily be merged into the episode list article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Diff'rent Strokes episodes. Since the article is for an episode, a merge to the episode list makes much more sense. ----DanTD (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE - I've decided I'm just going to merge it myself. ----DanTD (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dichroic LEDGlass[edit]

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

Sounds more like a advertise for a product made by a single company than a technology Craesh (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OMG. The other article about LED glass is marginal, but this one is awful. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cursory google and google scholar search turns up nothing. It appears to be a newly developed material, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball; notability should be established now rather than inferring on future notability. I also note that both articles were created by the apparent originator of the term, this seems like a speedy delete G11 case; unambiguous advertising. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 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.