< 26 January	28 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 redirect to Spinal Tap (band). (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smell the Glove[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails pretty much every inclusion criteria we've got, but I'll just go with WP:NALBUMS and WP:N more generally. This is a fictional album: It doesn't exist and never existed in the real world. It exists only as a plot device in a work of fiction, has no notability outside that work, and its role in the plot is completely covered in the film article's plot summary. The only sources here are unreliable: IMDb and a fan site. A previous deletion discussion in 2008 gathered 2 keep votes, based on possible notability with improvement, and 2 merge votes, but nothing ever came of either. There is no indication that this fictitious album has received significant real-world coverage in reliable secondary sources. IllaZilla (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not merge. While the album could be mentioned at Spinal Tap, merging this content would be putting undue weight. This album is not notable, Spinal Tap is. Delete and redirect. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spinal Tap per nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spinal Tap as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only "in-universe" notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for having no third-party sources to WP:verify notability in the real world outside of the fictional universe. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 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.

Ann Blackman[edit]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Toddst1 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:Author. Plenty of press-agent arranged appearances promoting her books but no in-depth coverage on her or anything else that would satisfy WP:Author. Findsources turns up only promotional appearances.

Note that this article was created by a now-blocked corporate account for what appears to be her publicist. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her books have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" so she meets WP:AUTHOR. Her biography of Madeleine Albright, for example, was reviewed by Salon.com, The Economist, The Washington Times, and hidden behind pay walls, the Denver Post, the Fresno Bee and the Dayton Daily News. She has been a nationally published journalist for over 40 years. The solution to shortcomings in an article about a notable person is to improve the article, not delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 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. Sandstein 07:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EIDOS Arts Development Foundation[edit]

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

While the people who created this NGO may be notable, the NGO itself does not appear to meet WP:ORG. It is conceivable that there are plenty of non-English sources, but I'm not finding any significant secondary sources in English. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the deadlinks that were in the article and added a link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia article and a couple of English language references. It maybe needs a bit more to be a clear Keep, but see in particular the discussion in the referenced article "A Short Guide to Contemporary Art in Ukraine". AllyD (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. People mentioned are clearly not notable to the best of my local knowledge. There's only one source that looks like news site, but it's not local. Ukrained (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete even the Ukrainian version of this article is bare on references. LibStar (talk) 11:32, 3 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journalness[edit]

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

I found no notability. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason for notability stated. Next to no coverage beyond the usual download sites, thus no way to establish notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Unable to locate coverage in reliable, secondary sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:12, 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 merge to Isaac Air Freight. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish Guys ... to Confound the Wise[edit]

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

Album lack substantial, multiple RS coverage. Article has zero refs, and zero ELs. Tagged for lack of notability and sources for over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooze Ya Looze. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The album, Fun in the Son' is of the same quality and must be handled in the samy way as the other two. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ merge/redirect The albums also lack any coverage in the wikipedia article beyond basic discogs info, so refs are not an issue here. May be merged into the author's page, but just as well kept separately, since wikipedia is not paper. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on what basis you are suggesting this could be a keep, even a weak one, given that it has zero refs and you have not indicated any substantial, multiple RS coverage. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of the possibility of merge as I explained, somewhat clumsily, above . I am changing my vote, to make my position clearer. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Please see my comment to Bearian below, on a fine point as to the (IMHO) preference of a redirect over a merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find coverage to pass WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 08:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. There's lots of links at Google, but nothing reliable that I can find. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The text has been challenged. As it is cited and challenged, per WP:CHALLENGED it would appear to require inline citations. As it lacks them, a redirect would appear to be preferable to a merge of challenged, uncited material by recreating it (without inline citations) in a target article. Properly cited material could always be created at the target. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Life to Live. DGG makes a cogent argument that warrants redirection at the least. Merging can always be done later. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lord (One Life to Live)[edit]

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

Non-notable character; article is almost entirely plot with poor referencing abundant Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AFD template was removed from the article by 67.49.19.204 with this edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citations in the article seem to be insufficient coverage for notability, although they do provide verifiability. He isn't important enough to be mentioned in the One Life to Live article, except in the template. --Bejnar (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect ' I am not going to defend keeping relatively minor character articles like these, and I really hope people will similarly not try to delete the material. Merge to a combination article about the characters in the work--the best compromise solution, or if not important enough, redirect to a list . So much the best compromise that I wonder we still see these arguments. Any non-trivial character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. (It doesn't matter how many characters there are--the more complicated the story, the more need to explain it fully and properly). We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect, so deletion is inappropriate. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added additional in-line citations. This character was a leading role of the series for several years it was featured. FrickFrack 14:49, 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, Rcsprinter (whisper) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant information from third-party sources can be found to WP:verify notability. Listing the actors portraying the character is not enough to explain this character's reception or significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:37, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duckworth (TV series)[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This failed television pilot fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:50, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:58, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:03, 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, Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JJ98 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this tv pilot to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit List Tour[edit]

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

I have been unable to find substantial rs coverage of this music tour. The article has zero refs, for which it has been tagged since September. It has also been tagged as an orphan for nearly 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:12, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 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, Rcsprinter (chatter) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this tour, even after eliminating "The" and adding "Cliff Richard". My assumption is that the album and the individual performances were reviewed but that there was no significant coverage of the whole tour as a topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this tour, either. It does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 20:52, 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 keep. Sandstein 07:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is logic empirical?[edit]

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

I feel a little hesitant to nominate this article for deletion, since the two articles about logic it discusses are clearly important. However, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It may be worth having an encyclopedia article about an article about logic, but it cannot be worth having an encyclopedia article about the title of an article about logic. Still less is it worth having an encyclopedia article about a title that actually applies to two different articles about logic; that's not encyclopedic at all. WP:NOTESSAY, too. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a good article, but I think it should be re-worked to focus more on the subject than the individual articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really addressed the point. The article is an interesting essay, and something of a muddled dictionary entry too, but it's not in the least encyclopedic. Maybe the content should be moved to user space instead of being deleted, but it just won't do as an encyclopedia article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The foremost question to consider here is whether the topic of this article – the papers by Putnam and Dummett – is notable. Even a peremptory search shows that the answer is in the affirmative. In particular the paper by Putnam has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Whether our article is a good article is secondary – and, speaking about secondary, it could be improved by sourcing the various claims to secondary sources; as it is, it indeed reads somewhat as an essay. I don't understand the WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument. Just like our article They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, the Wikipedia article is not about the phrase that is its title; it is about a publication bearing that title. --Lambiam 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an invalid argument for keeping the article. The article, as the lead states, is about the title "Is logic empirical". That is not a suitable or encyclopedic subject. You are just wrong in saying that the article "is not about the phrase that is its title" - the article itself explicitly states otherwise. Furthermore, while the two papers by Putnam and Dennett may each be notable independently, that does not mean that they constitute a specific, notable subject between them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is a completely different case that has nothing in common with this one. That article is not in violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY because, although the novel's title is taken from a common phrase, the use of the phrase as the title of the novel gives it a different sense entirely. In this case, however, the article as written is about a title that happens to be used by two different papers about logic. That does violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the lead states that the article is about the title "Is logic empirical?". Even if it were to make that statement, that is then an easily corrected error, since it is clearly the case that the content of the article is not about that title but about the articles bearing that title and the philosophical arguments made therein. --Lambiam 23:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead begins, " Is logic empirical? is the title of two articles that discuss the idea that the algebraic properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined". That statement, explaining the article's title, identifies what the article is about. Thus the article is effectively about a title shared by two different papers about logic. That the rest of the article's text may attempt to discuss the articles themselves is another matter; that doesn't alter the awkward, misconceived nature of the article itself. I suppose that if each of the two articles is independently notable, then the article could simply be split in two. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and per its lead our article The Overcoat is about the title "The Overcoat" and should be deleted as a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY to make room for an article about Gogol's short story of that name. :) --Lambiam 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's another case that has nothing in common with this one. That article can be fixed by simple editing, because it's about a single specific subject. This one can't, because it is an attempt to discuss two different papers together in one article by making the article about their shared title. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable content Greg Bard (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that a merge would make sense here, since the content seems ok but the article is all over the place. Then again, we're not supposed to merge uncited content. I think it would be a good idea to discuss these issues on the relevant topic, but I don't think it's a good idea to have one article on two papers like this. A quick look indicates that both the Putnam and Dummett papers may be independently notable, so the best idea may be to split this article and then renominate if necessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Dummett's paper was written in reaction to Putnam's, sources that discuss Dummett's paper in depth generally also present Putnam's argument, and the individual notability of Dummett's paper is therefore limited. Rather than treating these papers as two separate topics, I think it is much better to devote a single article to the philosophical debate on the question to what extent logic is empirical, a debate in which these two papers have presented key arguments and stand out as milestones. --Lambiam 21:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not convinced that Dummett's paper wouldn't be independently notable simply because sources that discuss it also discuss Putnam's. In any case, there is no reason why an article on the "philosophical debate on the question to what extent logic is empirical" should be written as though it were about the title "is logic empirical?" It's not a sensible or encyclopedic way of doing things. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to a colleague who teaches this material, this is a big concept in two big articles written by big names in philosophy. Plenty of sources could be added. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that you say nothing about the WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue. The article is effectively identified as being about the title "is logical empirical?", which is not a concept at all. If there is an underlying concept, it ought to be quite easy to identify what it is and rewrite the article accordingly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue about moving or re-naming the article, rather that a deletion issue. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two papers that are the subject of this article are cited enough to be notable, hence WP:N is satisfied. The article needs work, and possibly splitting or merging, but AfD is not for cleanup. -- 202.124.73.139 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article is about Putnam and Dummett's papers on logic doesn't make that so. De facto, articles are about what the lead identifies them as being about, in this case the title 'Is logic empirical?', an entirely unencyclopedic subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:17, 4 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 07:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jqgrid[edit]

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

Recently created software (JavaScript library), no references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by author. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Argento Surfer (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Next to zero coverage found on Google. General search returned little beyond download sites and code repositories. The best I could find was as an item in a list of urls in one book on Google Books. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Day I Snapped[edit]

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

While this band exists, and has a couple of passing mentions in gnews/gbooks, I could not find substantial RS coverage of it. Tagged for zero refs, and notability, since November. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a couple of brief mentions in Scottish newspapers I couldn't find much in the way of coverage.--Michig (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find enough to qualify the article of meeting criteria at WP:BAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSU1980 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Censorship in the People's Republic of China. Merge to Censorship in the People's Republic of China (some material - such as the music - is already in that article) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned items in China[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There may be lists of banned books, of banned television shows, or of banned video games, but each of these have reliable sources that document the topic as a whole. This list (of banned "items", which apparently includes things ranging from "websites" to "people") is original synthesis, guided by no outside sources or consistent criteria. All of the information in this article is duplicated on or easily moved to other articles such as list of banned video games. Shrigley (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random trivia. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any souceable material into Censorship in the People's Republic of China and then delete. Lugnuts (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lugnuts on this one. Anything worth keeping could be merged into Censorship in the People's Republic of China, but a redirect is probably not necessary (I'm not sure how many people are going to be looking for lists of banned "items"). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with censorship.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be sourced to Censorship in the People's Republic of China, as suggested. Sandstein 07:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 09:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to go against the above consensus on this one, I think this is actually a legitimate topic for an article. Censorship in the People's Republic of China is clearly notable, and this list is simply a subset of that one; I don't agree that it's indiscriminate or unmaintainable, as long as it's properly sourced. The title ('banned items') is a bit vague, but the subject of the article is clear nonetheless. Robofish (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Assuming I'm allowed to vote for my own article, anyway... I know the article as it stands is not in the best shape, I was hoping after creating it, it might be spruced up by some other editors. If anyone can tell me exactly why it's being deleted, I'd be more than happy to try and address any problems with the article. It technically doesn't fall under indiscriminate because the criterion for inclusion is, itself, discriminating solely to items banned in china. I won't argue that the list of people banned in china could probably be removed but there are many ways to improve the article and make it a useful, interesting list. Just my two-cents. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Censorship is notable, indiscriminate list is not. At best, merge some examples into parent topics. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Robofish has nailed it. The list is properly sourced and individual list items appear to each be independently notable. The topic as a whole could be clarified through expanding (and reffing) the lede to emphasize the central issue of "censorship in China" and perhaps by tightening the title, but as the Censorship in China article demonstrates there does seem to be broad notability and sources directly on point. Because Ncboy2010 has expressed a willingness to address any problems with the article, if worst comes to worst I'd say incubate or userfy until it reaches a more developed state. -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Or else merge and redirect per Lugnuts. Don't delete. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of banned items in mainland China or List of banned items in the People's Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Thibbs and the others here. Deletion would eliminate useful information, not duplicated elsewhere. So the choices are merge, incubate, or userfy. Can we get to consensus? Bearian (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sting (musical phrase)[edit]

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

There has been no reference stated since October 2006. The page is unreliable. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a term that I have heard used in the past. See this Glossary of Media terms from the BBC. I see two other options beside delete. One is to merge to Jingle. However, I'm not sure on the distinction between the term Sting and Jingle. The other is that the article as it stands is a dictionary definition. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, so you are inquiring that the page be deleted? Because it does, however, meet WP:DICTIONARY. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 00:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure at this stage. It is a term used in broadcasting and definitely belongs at somewhere such as here. However, it’s not currently an encyclopedia article and I'm not sure it could ever really be expanded very far. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article should be kept, but totally revamped. Made easier to understand, common usage, instruments used, and types, along with a sound clip or two. I would do it but don't know much on the subject. Will anyone step up? Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing, as per discussion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 23:19, 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 redirect to Mortal Engines Quartet. The content of the article can be found in the page history behind the redirect if a content merge is desired. Der yck C. 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Darwinism[edit]

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). To the small extent the article attempts out-of-universe analysis of the topic, that analysis is original research. Sandstein 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Concept seems notable by the significant coverage of it in scholarly articles, such as:

Bullen, Elizabeth; Parsons, Elizabeth (March 2007). "Dystopian Visions of Global Capitalism: Philip Reeve's Mortal Engines and M.T Anderson's Feed" (pdf). Children’s Literature in Education. 38 (2): 127-139. doi:10.1007/s10583-007-9041-9.
Currell, Susan (October 2010). "Breeding Better Babies in the Eugenic Garden City: 'Municipal Darwinism' and the (Anti)Cosmopolitan Utopia in the early Twentieth Century". Modernist Cultures. 5: 267-290. ISSN 2041-1022.
Chassagnol, Anna (March 2010). "Miranda n°1 - Darwin in Wonderland: Evolution, Involution and Natural Selection in The Water Babies (1863)". Miranda, n°1. ISSN 2108-6559.

There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use, for example this editorial compares Melbourne's metropolitan sprawl with "Municipal Darwinism". Although the Wikipedia article should be edited to eliminate the in-universe perspective, the concept is notable enough to pass WP:GNG criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect for digging up said sources, their actual direct coverage of this subject is at best worthy of a referenced paragraph in a parent article, examining how the theme of cities eating each other is a metaphor for capitalism as a whole. They are not in-depth treatments of the subject, which the article presently defines as basically the whole floating cities concept. The source referring to Melbourne is an editorial and is at best a primary source for the assertion that the term is gaining traction (no pun intended). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, Wikipedia has no limits on the minimum size of an article other than a suggestion that <1kb-size articles be considered for merging. Size isn't reason for deletion. In this AFD discussion, though, the nominator's rationale for deletion was lack of notability per WP:GNG. The references from independent reliable sources clearly dispute this. (And it required very little 'digging' to find these, so I expect there are more out there if we actually did some digging.) The sources show that the term and the concept of "Municipal Darwinism" is notable among scholars -- and they expand upon it beyond its relation to the novels. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say about the Paul James editorial -- a secondary source. (And, yes, you caught me -- I intentionally used with the word traction.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that these sources are basically trivial. Three of them devote no more than two paragraphs to the subject of this article (and only a small subset of the current article contents at that), and the fourth is really an examination of the wider themes in the series which so happens to derive its name from the nation-states concept. Editorial discretion suggests that this probably makes the subject important enough to take the time to describe in a parent article, but as far as standalone notability goes that's meagre pickings. My point about the editorial was that you asserted "There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use": however, there is no secondary source making that analysis, but only an example of such (which can be used only to verify its own existence). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your confusion then. You have confused an AFD discussion with article creation. Your point about the editorial is an erroneous conflation of the source (a reliable secondary source) with my opinion about that source (which, of course, by nature is primary and original). But this is an AFD discussion -- an open discussion for the exchange of ideas where we provide opinion -- we are not writing actual sentences in the article here. My point that the term is used to define and discuss real world conditions outside reviews of the fiction series remains valid -- clearly demonstrated by the editorial and the Modernist Cultures article. Therefore, an article on this topic should stand-alone outside the book article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't confused anything, and I'll thank you not to patronise me. You asserted that "There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use", which is a claim of notability. I pointed out that there is no actual evidence for this in terms of secondary sources making said claim, merely an example of such from a newspaper. This is no different to someone arguing that an actor is famous because some newspaper happened to name-drop him in some unrelated story. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I apologize that you feel patronized. You still seem to miss my point. That the editorial and the "Modernist Cultures" article are "unrelated", as you say, to a simple discussion or review of Reeve's novels is exactly my point. Currel and James use the term as the basis for their entire theses -- first explaining it within Reeve's work and then expanding upon it into real world context. That is far more than dropping a name. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plural of anecdote is not data. If a term really has entered the popular lexicon then we should be able to identify a reliable source which says so: discrete cases of writers using said term is insufficient to establish that, especially where the majority of such references are trivial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"especially where the majority of such references are trivial."

Trivial references do not dilute the existence of substantial references. Otherwise when will you be deleting Pokemon? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But nor do they do anything to support them. The one in-depth source does not state that the subject has entered the popular lexicon, nor even that the subject matter is notable outside of the series of books it appears in. It is unwise to extrapolate that position from a handful of additional trivial mentions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first cite noted here is a 12 page article in an academic journal specifically on children's literature, and not only describing the works and topic under discussion here but going so far as to cite the work's name in the article's title. Just what would you regard as WP:RS? For Dieselpunk you deleted an article with over 60 citations because you claimed you didn't believe any of them were up to your standards.

Yet at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Your_AfD_comments you describe Pokemon and articles like List of Pokémon characters as "probably the most high-profile case of the community cracking down on excessive fancruft." with the explanation that "some fictional subjects is_(sic) more notable than others". When asked why the (in-universe sourced) Reaver (Firefly) isn't at AfD, and whether this is just because Firefly gets more angry fanboys, your eventual response was "less broadly popular subjects are easier to police [...] we should endeavour to do so". So what do you think makes for an article worth keeping on a fictional topic? Popularity alone? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious that you'd bring up Dieselpunk (an article whose deletion has been repeatedly upheld) as a counterexample here, because paucity of non-trivial sources was the problem there as well. The Children's Literature in Education source was the "examination of wider themes" that I referred to; this is the best of the presented sources, and the only non-trivial one. The subject could still be adequately treated in a paragraph or two of the parent article using these sources. My comment regarding excessively popular articles which would otherwise likely be uncontroversially deleted referred to the amount of drama and acrimony generated by taking them to AfD (hence why only the most thick-skinned editors bother) rather than some expression of normative correctness in this situation. I certainly don't agree that these articles should be retained on popularity alone, but nor am I obliged to AfD them myself simply to satisfy another editor's demands for consistent treatment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man argument there with Children's Literature in Education. Can you please explain the policy you're implying where a journal source is only WP:RS if it's from a journal that's also WP:Notable, and shown to be notable because_(sic) it has a wiki article on it.

The point about Municipal Darwinism, and also Traction Cities, is that they both have sourceable existence outside of the Mortal Engines books. If this was covered in Mortal Engines Quartet (which would be an enormous article, if it had to cover a series of half-a-dozen books with only one permissible article), then you'd be right to remove such content as WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man? Calm down. It's not my fault if we don't (yet) have an article on the journal; I've already said that it's the best of the current sources, and RS says that so long as a journal is indexed we're fine to use it.

As for where this should be covered, Mortal Engines Quartet is precisely the right place for it. That article, which presently consists entirely of plot material, trivia and speculation of spin-offs, should instead discuss the history of the series, sales and popular impact, one part of which would be the recognition in a peer-reviewed journal of the predatory cities concept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per CactusWriter. Sources found appear to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All but one of those references are trivial mentions. This isn't a head count. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Philip Reeve. This is an unsourced neologism used in fictional work by a single author, without larger applicability. An "in-universe bit," if you will.. Note that in the event of deletion, redirection, or merger as a close that the link for this subject needs to be stricken from the Philip Reeve template showing at the bottom of the piece. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. I'm not convinced this subject has achieved real-world notability; it seems more like in-universe trivia. I wouldn't object to a summary being included in the main article on the series, however. Robofish (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet - there is no evidence that this has any significant coverage outside of the series. The sources provided do not establish anything beyond trivial coverage of the concept; nothing that could not be briefly covered in Mortan Engines Quartet. Without evidence that this is notable topic in the real world, I can see no scope for keeping the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. No coverage outside of the narrow in-universe discussion. Not enough cultural resonance as a concept for an encyclopedia page. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 7 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. Kubigula (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (Philip Reeve)[edit]

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article is now, it contains no secondary sources and is written in an in-universe style. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not notable outside of the series, it's unsourced, and it's all in an in-universe style. Three strikes and you're out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - The topic is not notable - the only sources are from the books themselves. Completely in-universe and with no evidence of real-world notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources indicating notability. Keep votes don't give appropriate reasons. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty Minute War[edit]

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial third party coverage. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One editor with a bug up his ass, hoping to delete anything and everything about a large set of articles about a well-known series of novels, hoping that the sheer volume of this mass-tagging can overwhelm the fanboy supporters. WP does fiction - get over it. If you don't like that, then I suggest you start with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryptonite. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vomiting your hatred for another user's opinion is not going to help keeping this article. I can see absolutely no valid point whatsoever in your comment, only personal attacks, which is why it won't be taken into account and you'll be warned for it. Don't forget to read WP:AFDEQ.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article. Nathan.f77 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- you're wrong because it doesn't have any third party reliable source establishing its notability and it is only a plot rehash which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Saying "keep" just for the sake of it and without any valid justification other than your own, subjective opinion on fiction which is contrary to the community consensus, is not going to save this article...Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per the total absence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, this "article" fails WP:GNG, thus is not notable and doesn't have anything to do on Wikipedia. The "article" in itself already violates WP:NOTPLOT as it is only a big plot summary devoid of any secondary information and written entirely with an in-universe perspective, thus violating WP:WAF.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic is not notable - the only sources are from the books themselves. Completely in-universe and with no evidence of real-world notability. Neither of the keep votes go beyond WP:ILIKEIT. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: personal attacks and ignorance of policy aside... we do delete articles when they are not independently notable. Need third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this plot element, but no sources offer any substantial detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 7 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audiopinons[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability requirements for web content or the general notability guidelines. Sources given are either the subject site itself or obscure blog sites. None of the sources given appear to satisfy the requirement for reliable sources. PROD was declined by an IP, likely the article creator, with the explanation that he had added additional sources to establish notability. However, as stated above, none appear to be reliable sources. Safiel (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable music site with few fans or followers. Bad sources, shoddy writing, little information. Not important enough. Definetly delete. Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - appears to be a typo in the article name - should be Audiopinions. I've fixed the Find sources link above. An optimist on the run! 07:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Wordpress blog. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this site; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Gongshow ^Talk 20:56, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traktionstadtsgesellschaft[edit]

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

Plot element from one novel, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial third party coverage, not substantial enough to merge. Sandstein 19:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's as notable and well-sourced as anything else in the novels, or in other novels for WP fiction coverage. If you're going to delete it, then delete Phillip Pullman and all points beneath, then head on over to Superman and Pokemon. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs have been cited to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I love the name, but it's clearly not a notable literary concept. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs third-party sources covering information about reception to WP:verify notability. Can't find any, so it can never meet our basic guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tripcode[edit]

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

Fails GNG pretty hard... No claim to notability aside from '4chan uses it'. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, not notable in the slightest. Usually I would consider merging this to 4chan but that is locked. incog (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although a technically sound article, I cannot find any notable sources regarding tripcodes. Murdox (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nasty unreadable article, but this is a significant piece of both theoretical crypto of interest to three people (on a good day) and also a trivial piece of populist interweb culture (the 4chan scumbucket) of vast interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? – Pnm (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So far no one has cited refs adequate to satisfy WP:N for what is mostly a "how-to" article. Edison (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this could be merged into imageboard. User:SweetieBelleMLP 19:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for that. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These things are in use on some popular sites so it figures people will want to know what they are and this is usually the first stop for people wanting to know what something is. Also, the article isn't incorrect in any aspect as I can see. If it is to be deleted it would be better to merge content to imageboard as the above poster suggested.--Lead holder (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect could be made to direct people to said information. User:SweetieBelleMLP 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL, WP:VALINFO, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:Subjective importance, etc. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting it may be, but without any secondary sources of note this is just a somewhat drawn-out Internet version of WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried looking for sources and drew an almost complete blank - an extremely brief mention in a Fox News piece about 4chan was the high point. Nothing here to meet WP:GNG or seemingly any other guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variable length flexible stylus[edit]

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

Non-notable product, article started by its inventor. Lack of third-party references indicates a lack of WP:GNG compliance. Max Semenik (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SarahStierch (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the definition of Notability "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

The main subject of silverpoint drawing has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (http://silverpointweb.com) The information provided is verifiable as to the inflexible stylus and is the subject of study by Watros, The Craft of Old Master Drawings;"The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:_PJmbQDg7i0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33) 208.105.82.246 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC) To sign previous edit. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information that is presently not verifyable for WIKI is my email correspondence from two recognized authorities on Renaissance art history saying that in their studies, they could not recall any references to a silverpoint stylus as being flexible.

A further subtopic of silverpoint drawing is the ground upon which silverpoint drawing is made using a stylus. This also has been the subject of study. With all the past discourse available, I present a solution to the limited range of values that has been the enigma of the medium. A study of the relative hardness of various materials using the Mohs system, supplies the answer by the the use of a water based correction fluid.

My discoveries overturn long held beliefs about the medium. To insure that credit for this discovery goes to an American artist, I applied for and obtained a patent on the system. Written into the patent description is the formula explaining that the dark to light Values are a function of the length of a flexible stylus. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is keep, an appropriate illustration from the patent would be used for educational purposes. If the editors need verification as to my sources and correspondence, please advise the procedures for disclosure of their names and authority as I understand that disclosure of the email correspondence may be inappropriate without explicit permission from the writer to disclose the email. (help) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is merely excerpts from Mitchsdiamond's patent application -- no reason to think this device is notable. There is already an article on silverpoint and Mitchsdiamond may be an excellent person to contribute to that, with the understanding that there is likely no place at all on WP for either mention of his patent (see WP:COI) or his "discoveries [which] overturn long held beliefs" about silverpoint drawing (WP:OR). EEng (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (P.S. A patent is not grounds for notability.)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT[edit]

Rewritten on my talk page.

ADDRESSING WP:GNG Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Refer to silverpoint characteristics. The stylus is a subject that is directly addressed in detail of the main topic of silverpoint.
ORPHAN links to silverpoint, silverpoint links to VLFS.
WP:OR and WP:COI have been addressed.
Silverpoint has been edited shifting VLFS to characteristics.
Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on her notability, default to delete. (This is my first time closing an OTRS-initiated AfD as such, so please do drop me a line if you're more an admin more experienced in handling such AfDs and think I've done it wrong.) Der yck C. 18:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Power[edit]

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

Deletion requested by the subject via OTRS (OTRS:2011121110010362 for the record) citing limited notability and harassment concerns. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment - "...harassment concerns?" What exactly does that mean? I'm inclined to oppose deletion, the second paragraph list several published works in notable publications. What is going on here?Greg Bard (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - when a BLP subject requests deletion of their article via OTRS, it is common practice that the OTRS agent responding to the ticket offers to begin an AfD on the subject's behalf. This is the case here. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm new to this, so I apologize if I ask an obvious question: are you certain that the request was sent by the subject of the article? The article itself seems innocuous and unlikely to spur harassment. Are there, perhaps, specific passages that are causing a problem? TreacherousWays (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The legitimacy of the request was confirmed prior to the AfD being initiated. I really cannot give any additional details outside of what I have already provided. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - With all due respect to Dr. Power, people don't have any control over whether or not they have a Wikipedia entry. Can you imagine if they did?! It would become standard practice for all lawyers of all notable people to request deletion. I would be fascinated to hear the reason behind the request, but am not inclined to deny the public. There really is no crying about it from someone who publishes in philosophy and journalism. Other than that... clearly notable. I hope this isn't just another person who holds WP in low esteem. Greg Bard (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose In the absence of a compelling reason, the article should be kept. The subject is notable and a very public figure. If the article is biased, it should be edited and brought in line with BLP guidelines. If there are vandalism issues, those could be addressed with article protections and blocking. If there are harassment issues in the really-real world, those need to be taken up with Law Enforcement. The personal safety of Ms Power must be held paramount, but I have heard nothing that suggests the article constitutes a threat to her. As Greg Bard rightly points out, deleting articles without a valid reason would be a problematic policy. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:19, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is a lecturer, editor, occasional columnist, and has raised some hackles regarding themes of feminism and Marxism. Overall marginal notability, probably meets the letter of some insipid sub-notability guide like WP:PROD or ACADEMIC, but honestly, stop and think of what an encyclopedia is here for. Cataloging every college professor/blogger/editor is not a primary goal of the project; if such a person on the barest edges of actual notability does not wish to have a Wikipedia presence (e.g. Daniel Brandt) then they have that right. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've used this as a joke line for years, but it has the ring of truth: if it wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the bare minimum. If Powers meets notability criteria but wants her article deleted, should it be deleted? What about the involved editors who spent time collecting and recording facts and references? This situation is the mirror-image of someone not-notable who *wants* an article - and we know how that debate ends. In the absence of a real policy-related reason, the article ought to stay (note: I don't know Powers from dirt; fell into this from I-don't-know-where and I am only arguing policy. If a guideline says the article should go, it should go, but from where I'm sitting it looks like weak keep). TreacherousWays (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What correlation is there between how much work editors put into an article and whether the article should be kept or not? I can put a lot of effort into blowing into a popped balloon, but it's still a popped balloon. If emotional appeal is a good reason to keep, it's a good reason to heed the wishes of the subject. And in that argument, the subject wins because harassment in her real life is more important than the loss of clicks finding links and research a few editors did. --173.55.205.67 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the editors' efforts, but you didn't address my other point: If Powers meets notability criteria but wants her article deleted, should it be deleted? My gut says "no" for reasons similar to why we don't allow spam articles: this is an encyclopedia. She's notable, so the article should stay. If she has issues with the content of the article, there are other remedies she should purusue. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has nothing wrong with it. It is about a person. I think that if some people contribute to it it will be a fine article. Algamicagrat (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Algamicagrat. Clearly notable. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the last two editors to !vote here could expand their motivation a bit and ground it in policy. As it is, their "keep" !votes basically boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, not a very strong argument in an AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: I have OTRS access, but apparently not the permissions needed to view the ticket. Could those who have comment on whether the concerns of harrassment appear credible? Without information about this, this aspect of the request may be disregarded in the eventual closure. Sandstein 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I could access the ticket after all; thanks, Ponyo. The harrassment concerns refer to past onwiki conduct that is (if repeated) not, I think, beyond the capacity of administrative actions to adequately address. As such, I do not think that these concerns must necessarily weigh heavily in the decision about whether or not to keep the article. Sandstein 18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't get the harassment concerns, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, the nom does not make a strong case for "limited notability." Notability is relative, depending on the scope of interest. So, someone may be very notable in an academic field, but not at all notable in the general populace. Roodog2k (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Sandstein. Subject obviously meets WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no evidence of harassment and there are certainly enough reliable sources to meet the GNG. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that she writes stuff which gets published and which creates "sources" about her isn't really controlling for whether she meets WP:GNG. There's a fair argument that she doesn't meet GNG. If some of her scholarship should be addressed in a substantive article about her research subjects, fine. I am ok deleting in an instance like this based on the subject's request. I am a die-hard inclusionist, but many of these keep votes "she's a person"--really? What's the best case, sources, etc., for notability. Let's be fair to living humans, and keep her if notable, but delete her if very marginal.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject meets WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrespective of the OTRS request, closer inspection shows notability problems, in my view. While she is a sometime contributor to The Guardian and ad-hoc commentator in a few other media outlets, it does not appear that she has been significantly "noted" by others. Her research scholarship is pretty mediocre, 4 papers in WoS having only a single citation among them, and her few books are not widely held by institutions. Her One Dimensional Woman is prominently discussed in the article, but has only ~90 holdings. She is a coauthor on On Beckett with ~120 holdings. (These figures are relatively small, e.g. compared to the just-concluded case of Ian Dowbiggin whose book holdings are in the thousands.) The most misleading aspect of this article is that it lists one of her books as Shelia Rowbotham presents Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. While widely held (~3500), Power is evidently not one of the authors of this publication (according to WorldCat, Amazon, Verso, etc.). Discounting the last book, I think notability, by our conventional standards, is not demonstrated. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Postscript. If the article is ultimately kept, then the "Interviews", "Film and TV Appearances", and "Radio Appearances" should be deleted. The entirety is unsourced ephemera. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Agricola44's analysis is quite thorough and has convinced me that this does not meet WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there is really much less here than meets the eye, and this person does not meet PROF, BIO, or GNG. I would urge close inspection of the keep votes above: one says "per Sandstein", but Sandstein does not recommend keep; another merely addresses the question of whether harassment should be considered but does not provide evidence of notability. Agricola44 has offered the most insightful analysis of her record. Even if this AfD looks like "no consensus", please consider closing it per WP:BIODEL -- in the presence of a request by the subject, no consensus may be closed with deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agricola44 has it, I think. With all due respect to the subject notability is borderline at best - and her request tips the scales toward deletion, as per doing no harm. That said, as per WP:USUAL, if the subject becomes more notable down the line - a high-profile publication or some other project that gets widespread coverage, for example - an article might be warranted. The more notable the subject is, generally the more likely it is that their article would be kept, all requests from the subject notwithstanding - and the subject should be aware of that possibility. The only way to ensure that no article will ever be written about you would be to go do something obscure. High-profile scholarship is not that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:06, 7 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Gooding[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTBALL as having not appeared in a fully professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the general notability guideline and guidelines for notability in association football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has made no appearances in a fully professional league, so fails WP:FOOTYN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Youth caps do not confer notability. Number 5 7 23:16, 2 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 under G7 —Dark 01:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kharat surname[edit]

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

Very short article about a particular surname. Not required for disambiguation. Unreferenced. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 17:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a different reason for deleting; the subject is not encyclopedic. Roodog2k (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It always nags at me when an article by a new user is proposed for AfD. I also see that this new user got a vandalism warning. So far, I would say that they have had a bad first experience as a Wikipedia editor. I would stress WP:BITE in these circumstances. Roodog2k (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 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 merge to The Normal Heart. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Normal Heart (film)[edit]

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

This article is too speculative for Wikipedia. Not sure about notability, as Google is flooded with information about the play. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to The Normal Heart as failing WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever solid info we have to a paragraph in The Normal Heart. (see WP:NFF) Pichpich (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Normal Heart (there's a couple of sentences and sources already there) until this production becomes certain enough to support a separate article. Based on the news reports, that day may not be too far off, so we may be able to use the infobox from this article's edit history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Normal Heart" until principal photography begins. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Normal Heart. I will support it having its own article once its released, if there is substantial, reliable coverage. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Normal Heart until more material becomes availible. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - now it's snowing. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbnesh[edit]

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

Lack of evidence of notability per WP:N FunkyCanute (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply because I cannot find any evidence that this town exists. The article gives very little information, so it is hard to work out what Arbnesh is supposed to be (a town, a region in a town, etc). If it turns out to exist and is a town (rather than a region), I would lean on the side of keeping the article, because a town is likely to be notable regardless of sources (and, being Montenegro, it is unlikely that we'll find enough English sources). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Montenegran census data available here, there is a settlement in Bar called Arbnež; Arbnesh is probably a variant spelling or an anglicization of the ž. "Arbnež" turns up a lot more sources, and the article should probably be moved there, but it appears to be a verifiable settlement, which are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Arbnež - Looks like an actual settlement to me.[1]--Oakshade (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Arbnež - ž is usually transcribed as zh not sh but that is no reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The source provided by TheCatalyst31 has allayed my worries. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:12, 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. without prejudice. There is no discussion on the notability of the company, which might still be demonstrated in a different version that is not spam. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foviance[edit]

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

Article created by COI editor. No independent third party sources, only references are to company website or to user-contributed news sites/press releases. No indications of notability. Previous PROD removed by single-purpose account without reason provided. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Another customer experience consultancy (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) advertising on Wikipedia. Unabiguous advertising: The company provides user experience, usability, analytics, accessibility and research consulting services to clients worldwide. Obvious conflict of interest: article is by User:Foviance, and contains an unreferenced company history. References are to a social media site profile of the proprietor, a press release, and internal links.

NOTE: I am also nominating the following related pages because this person is apparently the proprietor, her page is obviously promotional, and she and does not appear to be a notable subject for an encyclopedia article either:

--- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Foviance has been blocked per the promotional username policy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a speedy deletion. I did not propose it as such, given the time the article has been around. I also support delete for the Catriona Campbell article (I PRODded it earlier today and Smerdis of Tlön was faster than me bringing it top AfD). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is way too promotional for Wikipedia. Even if it is a notable company, it would need a fundamental rewrite to meet out neutrality standards. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Guillaume2303. Ukrained (talk) 01:01, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust-Hub[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd time at AFD, last time no one commented either way, so admin kept for some unknown reason. Several references that do everything except talk about the notability of this website. Searching for actual coverage of this website only brings up primary sources or passing mentions. Created by SPA, looks like an advert, which is an editing problem but still can't fix if you can't find coverage. Articles or publications that mention it are involved in it, no independent coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a website where members of the IC hardware security community can share their discoveries and other information that accelerates hardware security research and developments. No showing of long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability under our guidelines. (Why was this AFD relisted, when two editors proposed deletion and no one suggested a keep? It should have been closed as 'delete' first time around.) Robofish (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Investment & Technology Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ITC Investment & Technology Group

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

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability of this corporation. Google sniff test gives a zillion companies that use these buzz words, but only a couple of hits when you qualify this with "Iraq"; lead items are company's own Web site and this article. WP:CORP says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " and these sources aren't independent. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a Business-to-government (B2G) company. This business might possibly have some kind of historical importance, but the article makes no case for it, and I can't find anything that makes a case either. Some sources may be in non-Latin scripts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this company is notable. The only reliable source on the article doesn't seem to mention the company. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freecharge[edit]

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

Speedy A7 template removed by a third-party. Company in India, no evidence of notability; main reference is the company's "Contact Us" webpage. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing here makes a case for minimal importance for this online recharge agency. (This apparently means that they add more time to cash and phone cards and the like.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under either A7 or G11 - I see no assertions of notability and it is written in a very promotional tone. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability found.--Michig (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Ukrained (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 & G11. I also see some socking in the history. Hairhorn (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Few external links have been added for notability of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brat tariq (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Brat tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The article now has enough external links to prove its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.16.125 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — 27.4.16.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Pass WP:GNG and WP:N. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources --Dude7190 (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires sources, but sources are not sufficient for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There actually are references, though there were mistakenly put in the external links section. But I have not yet checked to see how substantial they are. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to me to be sufficient. The Hindu and Financial Express articles both appear to be regurgitating the same press release. The others don't look like reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, generally speaking, announcements that a business has started up, opened a facility, or received financing do not count as significant coverage. Sources like this can establish that it isn't a hoax, but not much more. If the business is in fact operating, all of this can be presumed. Finding a subject notable means that it ought to be covered in an encyclopedia. Notability is not temporary; therefore, notable now means notable forever. These stories do not turn this business into something that meets that standard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources have been added, but they do not show significant coverage, IMHO, just existence. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have significant, independent, multiple RS coverage. I also see from the above that two of the keep !votes are apparent SPAs, created immediately upon this AfD having been started.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Pagano (ESPN)[edit]

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

~~Delete~~: This article has been in existence since May of 2009. It's been tagged with ((Refimprove)) since then, yet not one single reference has ever been added. It was tagged for speedy deletion in May of 2009, which was declined. It was prod'd in July of 2009, which resulted in its deletion. It was restored after a complaint was registered with the deleting admin [2]. Yet, since that time effectively nothing has been done to the article. There's no deadline, but this article has languished in stub, unreferenced state for a long, long time. If he's truly notable, someone will feel motivated to create an article about him in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a number of sources, which indicate that he is considered an important figure on the technical side of the sports broadcasting world. (Note: Searching is complicated by the fact that he shares his name with the new coach of the Indianapolis Colts, so that even searches for <"Chuck Pagano"+ESPN> turn up more hits for the other guy.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator does not advance a valid argument for deletion, AfD is not for cleanup. Thanks to Arxiloxos for adding sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references provided do more than enough to establish notability; the article needs cleanup, not deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Arxiloxos' work, I am striking my vote. @Milowent; the point, as expressed in my statement, is one of notability. Thanks to Arxiloxos, notability is now asserted with appropriate secondary sources. --Hammersoft (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 speedy delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hersham FC[edit]

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

no assertion of notability (see WP:FOOTY/N) Jameboy (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of having ever played at a notable level of football. In fact, is there even a claim to notability in the article? Possible speedy delete.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#A7. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lavery[edit]

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

Prod removed a Fictional Character fails WP:N Further has copyright issues. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like many recent characters, this character has no coverage, significant storylines, impact, and charisma. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on the notability, but evidence suggests that the copyright problems in this case are reverse. See Talk:Emma_Lavery. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:15, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is from another user. I hope it is useful. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I think Emma Lavery should be merged into a children's page or character page. She's not quite verifiable enough for her own page, especially as a young child.
— _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Children of All My Children - No evidence that the character has any independent notability; coverage in a list is sufficient. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition to deletion, but may be userfied on request. Sandstein 08:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lambert[edit]

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

Delete as notability has not been demonstrated nor any independent sources provided, despite tagging with these requirements in July 2010. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some offline citations have since been added, but I cannot verify any of the cited articles online, and I fear that they may well just verify the events mentioned (movements of historic aircraft) rather than Andy Lambert's part in them. The most frequently cited source, Professional Recovery Published by Partnership Publications, also cannot be verified online, might not be independent of the subject, and was in error about an award given to Lambert (see talk page). Andy Lambert is explicitly the author/webmaster of some of the external links that were given, and others did not seem to contain any info about him, so I have trimmed the links without removing any actual sources AFAIK. We do not know what content about Lambert is included in the books listed in the bibliography. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:16, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: well known in the vehicle recovery industry. What is this? A repo man? At any rate, this seems to be referenced to self-published sources, and contains a great deal of personal resume trivia like his ham radio callsign. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be fair: vehicle recovery means tow trucks and stuff. He's responsible for the UK industry's communications protocol Turbo Dispatch which recently survived AfD. After that I tidied up the bio a bit but it still lacks evidence of personal notability; the industry awards don't amount to "a well-known and significant award" which would satisfy WP:BIO. It might be worth userfying the article e.g. under User talk:Brooklands Nut in case knowledgeable people with access to the printed media listed in the bibliography can add more quotations. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key Elements[edit]

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

I can't find substantial RS coverage on gnews and gbooks, and Allmusic never heard of this band. Not to be confused with the Cornell band of the same name. Zero refs. Zero independent ELs. Tagged for notability and for reliance on primary sources for over 3 years, and as an orphan. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. [3] and [4] are some monitor mentions I found but well short of the coverage needed for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found. No other indication of notability.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aquascape, Inc.[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This entry above is part of the nomination, and is not an !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why state the obvious and follow it by a meaningless and inaccurate double negative? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination is basically a !vote, as I was told once. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 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?} 13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This business makes fountains and such for water gardens and ponds. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture of the kind that would make it a subject for coverage in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrullah Medqalchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Artist Gsingh (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:BLP fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Only one source presently in the article, but its a full blown Persian-language article. Fair argument for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLP and even the lone source given is not in English and the subject also fails WP:artist and further find only a stub in Persian wiki if this is being referred too.. ^[1] and and the fails the google Test Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether its in English is irrelevant, I would expect most or all sources to be in Persian, and it doesn't fail the google test in Persian.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just added some sources to the article. Please check it out.Farhikht (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's one the famous dubbers in Iran as I'm aware. I searched about him through Internet, many reliable Farsi sources can be found but I didn't find any English. Some of the examples are: [5], [6]. It just need to be rescued by some Persian users. (Unfortunately I don't have time but maybe later!) ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:58, 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 redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haitham El Shoumali[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Close to nothing on gbooks and gnews combined. My understanding is that placing 7th on a version of Pop Idol does not by itself confer notability on a singer. Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are numerous news results for his name in arabic at places like panet.co.il, Palestine News Network and Arabs48. i can confirm that many are principally about the subject, though i have no idea as to the significance of the coverage, and little of the reliability of the sources. Though this one may or may not be wikinotable, more generally I'm surprised that you do not redirect articles of this type, since you generally research them well before nomination; there are highly accurate targets, and there is AfD if the edit does not stick. You are just being scrupulous, i presume? 86.44.47.170 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scrupulously paying heed to the fact that some editors aren't on board as to the lack of inherent notability in finishing 7th in one of these Pop Idol-like competitions. I personally would rather see community support for whatever action is taken, rather than myself presume to delete the standalone text myself -- without clear community support -- and redirect the article. Though, of course, that would save me time, and result in my main goal ... the deletion of the article qua stand-alone, since I believe it is non-notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super_Star_(Arabic_TV_series)#Super_Star_3_.282005-2006.29 If something can be made of the sources, the option to undo is there. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006) per 86.44.31.8. This subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. The subject might warrant a sentence or two in the main article. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kausar Abdullaha Malik[edit]

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

Apparently an advert (don't know if it is an autobiography, there are only 1 main contributor for now). Also, the name of the person should be "Kausar Abdullah Malik". Lakokat (Drop me a line) 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advert. The person is quite a famous person in Pakistan. And I have just tried to create a page about him. I agree that the language is more like autobiography. but this is just a start. I am gathering information about him and that will soon be updated --Biotech78 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well after giving the page another look, I just realized that this page is the wrong one I created mistakenly before i created an actual one. I agree the page should be deleted as it is not useful --Biotech78 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 in light of the above comment. All edits to this article by other editors were to add tags or fix wiki markup. No prejudice against nominating identical article Kausar Abdullah Malik at AfD or pointing this AfD to that article instead. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note to admins and non-admin AfD closers: Since this page and Kausar Abdullah Malik are almost word-for-word identical, and the article creator indicated above that the Dr. Kausar Abdullaha Malik article was the wrong title, I have redirected Dr. Kausar Abdullaha Malik to Kausar Abdullah Malik and placed an AfD notice pointing to this discussion on the latter article. Please do not close this AfD solely on the grounds that the subject page is a redirect. The article being discussed in this AfD is Kausar Abdullah Malik—KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of new to making pages for wikipedia so I am not very much expert in this. I will try to change the language of the article to make it less like autobiography. If someone can help me with this, I will be obliged -->--Biotech78 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some amendments to the article and will be making some more soon so that it does not look like an advertisement. I request editors to please help me make this page look better. I will add the information, and editors can help me if they please, to format it in a better way. Thanks --Biotech78 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not believe the article was intended as an advert. Admittedly it contained some peacock terms, but I have removed most or all of these. The subject of the article certainly passes WP:Notability (academics) as evidenced by the referenced material in the Kausar Abdullah Malik#Awards and honors section, so is worth an article in Wikipedia. Qwfp (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and far more notable Pakistani than the article gives information about. I will see what I can find and get translated from Urdu, but there might be more sources in English, also. Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will always be willing to translate any information from Urdu to English. I am also trying to get some more information about him, which might not be readily available on internet (his CV particularly). Please let me know if any particular information is required or if you need some help in translations--Biotech78 (talk) 12:50, 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. Consensus is that notability has not been shown, and that sources are questionable SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Cavender[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:NMODEL, WP:CREATIVE and WP:BAND. Ref #1/bodyspace & Ref #6/ReverbNation are in self-edited listings/forums so are not reliable sources, Ref#2 is from a free-subscription magazine, Ref #8/btsp is a repeat of Ref #2 and cited refs do not prove championship assertion. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, she was also in this magazin: American Curves published. Maybe I will found more. mabdul 15:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [7] kandy (magazine) cover model mabdul 15:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [8] and even on the Playboy cover. mabdul 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and more [9] Mixed (magazine) and as can seen here also at VBLAZIN. (changed vote to speedy keep) mabdul 16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That 'Playboy cover' is a notice with a picture that she had a DJ gig at a Dallas TX nightclub, it is not that she had a Playboy magazine "cover". "Kandy" magazine is a free-subscription (given away) magazine, the link you posted above is to a 'twitter' type of page at that magazine and it seems mainly to be a website for women to post pictures on. "Mixed" magazine (from their own website) is "an online men site featuring the hottest models" and I can find no subscription information for it. Cavender does have racy pictures posted at various websites...does every lingerie model on the Internet get their own Wikipedia article? Shearonink (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kandy says that they get 100k visitors a month.

and RKPubs the company behind American Curves claims to have 100k printed magazines (dunno in which time/per issue?). mabdul 16:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any independent verification of these asserted subscription/website visit figures? Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I can understand why this was put through AfC but there are too many grand claims in the article with no evidence at the moment. Most of the sources are user submitted non reliable websites, as the OP pointed out. There's not enough evidence provided so far to convince me she's actually been published in print on enough occasions to me WP:NMODEL. You would think that with all her various careers paths she'd meet WP:GNG, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Sionk (talk) 11:53, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tons of hits all over the Googlesphere. While most of them are fluff, I'm convinced Cavender is a public figure as a model. (PI) I've tried to de-peacock and de-familiarize the prose. I doubt QBs in the Lingerie Football League get a free pass here, although they probably both make them and receive them, but she was one in 2009, for what it's worth. Most intriguing is this find: "You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby: Language in Sports—Can Women Compete?" by Laura Cavender, Communications, Culture, and Technology Program, Georgetown University. Yes, I know that's nothing that goes to notability, may not be the same person, but for what it's worth... It seems the most fruitful vein of Really Borderline But Maybe Usable web sources are in the sports-model rather than music industry direction. I'm not spotting the necessary couple sources to make this a for-sure keep, but I'm certainly inclined to believe they are out there. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is more than one person by the name of "Laura Cavender". The person that Carrite is referencing is not this asserted model, but a public relations professional. Presently Director of Strategic Communications at University of Pennsylvania. Past positions at Georgetown University Medical Center, Georgetown University, Congressional Quarterly and American Red Cross. Shearonink (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin ZP98[edit]

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

No indication that this pistol passes WP:GNG. Additionally, it is sourced only to the manufacturer's page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—It has a mention in Jane's (a bible of weaponry). My local library doesn't have a copy of Jane's Police and Homeland Security Equipment, so I can't evaluate the full entry, but most entries in Jane's are pretty short... The pistol seems to be notable in foreign language publications like this one. A big part of the problem is that Magnum Research bought the rights to the ZP98 for United States sales and distribution, so a great many of the articles and other g-hits show up as trivial mentions inside an article on the "Micro Desert Eagle," which is the name MR is selling it under in the USA. My proposal is to keep this article, add a redirect from Micro Desert Eagle, and expand this one article to cover both pistols. There are plenty of English sources on the Micro Desert Eagle, like American Handgunner, a monthly paper periodical. There's also a short section in the IMI Desert Eagle section about the Micro Desert Eagle, but since these two pistols have nothing to do with each other except a common name, I would also pull the info out of the Desert Eagle article and put a "see also" instead. I'll do all of this, but I don't want to mess around with the article title, set up redirects, add "main article..." links, etc. while there's an AfD going on. But I'll watch this page and start in when the AfD closes. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and deal with as Livitup suggests. Not my field, but it seems sensible. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Sedokova[edit]

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

Not notable in her own right and only assertion of notability relates to membership of Nu Virgos. On ref in Russian and other is publicity material. Merge with Nu Vigos would be best option. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if you take a look here, at the Russian version of the article, you can find among the references enough significant coverage on secondary reliable sources to reasonably substain a claim of (individual) notability. And a lot of coverage could be added searching for "Анна Седокова" on Google. She has more than 1.500 enties on Google News.Cavarrone (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited in the Russian version of the article look more than adequate for notability.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. To the best of my sufficiently qualified local knowledge, Anna is just another big-breasted model whose name happened to be intensively used for SEO and other marketing purposes. All "references" discussed above are just outstanding examples of media trash. People doing that should not be allowed to continue their business on Wikipedia. Ukrained (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RSs covered here sufficiently to establish notability. I really don't think that guesses as to why they did so should impact my !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Cavarrone and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of All My Children characters. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article on this character isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Morgan[edit]

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

This topic is never supposed to be created in the first place. I tried searching this character with 'randi "All my children" denise', and nothing significant (analysis, review, or statistical praise) comes up. To make matters worse, this article consists of only plot and is a mere biography of fictional character, which is against WP:PLOT. Somehow, DGG contested the PROD because notability is possible for every fictional character; this character doesn't pass WP:GNG for lack of significance, impact, and analytical interests. Her storylines have not been covered by scholars and reviewers, and even her relationships with others, including Frankie Hubbard, do not hold water.

Even "Introduction" section doesn't help prove this character's notability; in fact, it is a mere real-world addition to balance out fiction.

By the way, I'm aware of WP:ATD. Denise Vasi and Randi Morgan are two different people. "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" is removed for copyright violations; List of All My Children characters is a mere collection of fictional characters, which is against WP:PLOT, and consists of very brief abstracts. This character has done some things that may make redirect to "Frankie Hubbard" out of the question. George Ho (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No indication of wp:notability. Most of the article is just plot summary relevant to that character. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of All My Children characters, already has an entry there. A412 (Talk * C) 00:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, redirecting to List of All My Children characters, even if it has an abstract of Randi Morgan, is not my recommendation. --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am proposing redirecting as an alternative to deletion, in that case. There's nothing wrong with redirecting there. A412 (Talk * C) 04:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:48, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources exist to WP:verify notability or make this more than a WP:PLOT summary, which is what wikipedia is not. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual for minor characters of this sort. That we not make a redirect when there is actually information in the main article or list sounds like an exceptionally wrong proposal to me, totally out of the spirit of WP:Deletion policy I deprodded not because it would in my opinion make a separate article, but because the results of discussions like this are variable enough that there should be one. at least if the character is in a major work. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Studdah Man De Vore[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article has no independent sources to show that the person is notable, and I can't find any. Appears to be self-promotion. John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:COMPOSER Co-composed several late Public Enemy singles ("Give It Up", "So Whatcha Gone Do Now"), album tracks ("Race Against Time") and sole composer (music) on singles which featured them as guests (Tijana Bass's "Da, da, da...DA!"). I'm gonna lazily presume that at least one of them is notable. Needs to be moved to Studdah Man. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:47, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th Chamber[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another viral marketing seeding agency advertising on Wikipedia. No real references. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, just some very ordinary mentions as yet another "viral marketing agency"—a group that uses websites like Wikipedia to promote their message, but not very successfully in this case as seen by the lack of substantive references. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golfbreaks.com[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is mostly routine trade publication stuff, and it's basically a promotional article, created by a promo person at the website. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice for recreation. The discussion takes no problem with having this list, just that in it's present form (empty because it is unreferenced) it serves no useful purpose Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dhangar[edit]

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

After cleaning up the list from any entries which lacked all proof of notability (per WP:LISTPEOPLE) I was left with this list of 11 unsourced entries. I started looking at the articles to add sources that they are members of the caste. I started removing entries which did not even mention that membership in their own article, let alone source it ([10] [11]), and then found out none of the 11 entries had that caste membership even mentioned in their article (let alone being sourced). I therefore propose, rather than I delete them one by one, to delete the list since it is, per WP:LISTPEOPLE entirely empty. If a source can be found for one or two of them, they can be added to the article Dhangar. Muhandes (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I removed all entries from the list since they were unsourced and I feel stating someone's caste without a source in which they identify as such is violation of BLP guidelines. this was the state of the article before I did that. --Muhandes (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blank page after removing the unsourced entries. utcursch | talk 04:54, 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 merge to Worship Music. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alive (Anthrax Song)[edit]

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

Article does not indicate notability of subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search indicates that it has been released as a radio single but no news on charting, etc. and so does not meet WP:NALBUMS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Worship Music, the album it's from. No indication that this song has charted, and the small amount of useful info not already in the album article can be accommodated there easily. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:37, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:45, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Worship Music, the album it's from. No indication of separate wp:notability (zero such sources). Also it's just a couple of sentences...clearly best covered by putting those into the album article. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 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 no consensus. Der yck C. 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts and attacks, July – December 2011[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news site Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and this would go for the article below as well. I'm not so sure delete is the right solution here. There are problems, with the dates being indiscriminate and the criteria being unclear, but an article that contained verified, notable attacks may be fine for inclusion if there was a bit more clarity as to the criteria for inclusion. The name is also a bit vague for my tastes as well. The info is worth including (WP:NEWS isn't the issue, imho), I'm just not sold this is the best way. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as List of terrorist incidents, 2011 (currently a redirect to this article), just like all the other yearly articles List of terrorist incidents links to. Delete government-initiated actions or split them off into their own list. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of terrorist incidents has articles of terrorists acts around the world, with the ones from 1970 to 2011 having their own articles. This one should be redirected to List of terrorist incidents, 2011. Any information that is different can be merged over. It was originally called that, before someone decided to split it into two different articles, and argued over the word "terrorist". I reverted their redirect. Any information not there already, should be merged over. Dream Focus 23:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We went through a long discussion on the talk page and terrorist is pov, ESP. if only mentions non-state actors.

As an aside, thsi incarnaiton was NOT my preference it was a product of consensus...that was then unilaterally reverted without discussion while 2 pages were ongoing. per WP:WTA]] and WP:NPOV as well as consensus on the TALK PAGE not this discussion for deletion it was agreed to mveo it.Lihaas (talk) 21:09, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unclear inclusion criterion, resulting in random selection of the thousands of individual violent attacks by non-state actors for criminal or other motives. --Lambiam 08:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While WP is not news, the list format provides a record of events, similar to year articles (e.g. 2011) which incidentally have far looser inclusion criteria and thus really read like a news paper. So, instead of deleting, this article just needs to have its inclusion criteria better defined. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe this info should go somewhere else, or some other merges, reorganizations or changes are needed. But there is a huge amount of sourced referenced reasonably-enclyclopedic information & work here. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Also see WP:LC items 1, 3, 6, and 10. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the right side of the table are two columns: State and Non-state. The entire State column proves that the article is not a copy of the Terrorist actions list. Could be a more concise addition to the existing 'List of terrorist incidents' if it included only State Actions. Anarchangel (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Der yck C. 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2011[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news site Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of terrorist incidents has articles of terrorists acts around the world, with the ones from 1970 to 2011 having their own articles. This one should be redirected to List of terrorist incidents, 2011. Any information that is different can be merged over. Dream Focus 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We went through a long discussion on the talk page and terrorist is pov, ESP. if only mentions non-state actors.

As an aside, thsi incarnaiton was NOT my preference it was a product of consensus...that was then unilaterally reverted without discussion while 2 pages were ongoing. per WP:WTA]] and WP:NPOV as well as consensus on the TALK PAGE not this discussion for deletion it was agreed to mveo it. this has nothing to do with news, its a list per precedence as in all the others including the list of terrorist incidents that no one disputes as notable.

the nom cites indiscriminate nad then says it should moved to terrorit incidents, what is that then?Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unclear inclusion criterion, resulting in random selection of the thousands of individual violent attacks by non-state actors for criminal or other motives. The article List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012 (not currently nominated for deletion) should go for the same reason. --Lambiam 08:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the LONG and heated discussion on the terrorist lists 2011 which had an "unclear inclusion cirterion" that was the basis for the move this one has a clear one that is not POV to invlude state actions or a RANDOM collection but bombings and actions that would feature on both lists. Terroroism is not the monopoly of non-state actors and thats pov.

Conversely the title on that article would be fine and npov if it adopted such a format (the state/non-state table came from discussion in early 2011).

However to say it has UNCLEAR ciretion is a gross misjudgement becuase its crtirion is FAR more clear than the already heavily disputed 2011 list...furthermore the original reason citing "is not a news site" is clearly hypocrisy as that would apply similarly to the other article.Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take for example the March 27 killing of DJ Megatron, or the May 15 killing of M-Bone. Why are these not on the list? They fit the given inclusion criterion. For a discussion of the inclusion criterion it is not relevant what an earlier article title was. "List of evil acts by evil people" may not be a good idea for an article, but renaming it "List of acts by people" does not turn it into a good idea. (The present name is pretty bad in any case; the article is not about armed conflicts but about specific incidents.) --Lambiam 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not there because no one sayw fit for it...we cant FORCE people to make edits otherwise all articles would be perfect.

this nakme wasnt my incarnation it was the consensus generated early last year to create this. in fact i was not in favour of it...but the other article is certainly POV.Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying these killings do fit the inclusion criterion? Then it is indeed indiscriminate and unmanageable. --Lambiam 09:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether i say it or not is irrelevant because i dont make the rules discussion on the TALK page does through consensus as it was when this was created, against my choice too, if you must know. we DISCUSS ctriterion on the talk page, dont delete it when theres an alternative like consensus gathering. (as in the delete page that talks of alternatives) Not to mention pov the other ay round. At any rate, who defines what terrorism is? This is not a media laden weblog.Lihaas (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While WP is not news, the list format provides a record of events, similar to year articles (e.g. 2011) which incidentally have far looser inclusion criteria and thus really read like a news paper. So, instead of deleting, this article just needs to have its inclusion criteria better defined. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe this info should go somewhere else, or some other merges, reorganizations or changes are needed. But there is a huge amount of sourced referenced reasonably-enclyclopedic information & work here. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the right side of the table are two columns: State and Non-state. The entire State column proves that the article is not a copy of the Terrorist actions list. Could be a more concise addition to the existing 'List of terrorist incidents' if it included only State Actions. Anarchangel (talk) 05:07, 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 merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. The content appears to have been merged, so I will redirect these pages. The history is intact if they schools later show independent notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pastoral Region[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to publish directory information. This article duplicates material on the Boston Archdiocesan web site.[12] Moreover, the "Central Pastoral Region" is not a notable organization, merely an administrative category within the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. Chonak (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same issues apply to them:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge all~~ into the Archdiocese page. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not usually regarded as a good reason for deletion, but this seems to have getting down to an exceesive level of detail. The article is little more than a mere list. None of the individual churches have articles, nor do the vicars. I thus presume they are typically NN. By merging we will get a summary of the arrangements, and an external link can be provided to the archdiocesan website, which will inevitably be maintained, where as the WP pages may not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revoted below. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no AfD action needed These articles seem to just need editors to add material to them. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 18 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, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: per Peterkingiron. No, these articles do not "seem to just need editors to add material;" Wikipedia is not wastepaper, and we don't need to fill up non-notable articles just for the sake of filling them up. Ravenswing 16:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not capable of saying "I don't agree" and providing evidence? Tell me this, where should material for these elementary schools be added to the encyclopedia? Unscintillating (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: One could respond "Are you not capable of refraining from ad hominem attacks," but that would be uncivil. The answer to your legitimate question is "nowhere;" longstanding consensus holds for the non-notability of elementary schools. Ravenswing 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to respond further. Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize to statistical form and merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. Note that these articles are almost orphans: for example, after the proposed deletion only three articles would remain with links to Central Pastoral Region: Robert Francis Hennessey, Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Boston, and St. Adalbert Parish, Hyde Park. Thanks to all participating for the comments. Chonak (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a summary of the regional articles to the Archdiocese article.[13] It includes information omitted from the separate articles (e.g., some of the colleges).--Chonak (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now delete all -- All useful information seems to have been merged to the archdiocesan article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Die Ärzte. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teenager Liebe[edit]

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

Non-notable song track from a (probably) non-notable album. No references for over 4 years. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Die Ärzte The big problem here is that there's a language barrier as well as a time period one. Music reviews from the 80s aren't typically uploaded to the internet and since there's a language barrier, searching for sources isn't proving particularly fruitful for me. I'm seeing tons of fan pages and other non-usable sources, but nothing that would get this song to pass WP:NSONG. I do think that a redirect would be worthwhile, though. I'd say that it should go to the EP it was released on, but I don't see any sources on the album and I'm a little afraid of it getting deleted itself. If anyone with better German skills than I possess can find sources, I'm open to changing my vote.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 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 Agathodaimon. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jansohn[edit]

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

Almost empty article. Sigwald (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to his band, Agathodaimon. Cavarrone (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Tempting to redirect and close this now, since the redirect is logical and was never attempted. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:13, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACF Car Finance[edit]

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

No evidence of notability given on this article for a liability company. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In such cases, we add ((unreferenced)) to the article to attract editors to add references. This is an editor's first article so WP:BITE applies as well. Improve, don't delete. patsw (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITE says nothing about keeping inappropriate content just because it was created by a new user. It's about explaining to them why their submission was inappropriate. Them From Space 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an unreferenced tag doesn't address issues of notability. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That notwithstanding, nothing I've found appears to indicate that this business currently qualifies as a subject for an encyclopedia article. Google News finds no significant coverage, only publicity materials and announcements of expansions and other routine transactions. Sources can't be added if there aren't any. Thumbs up to this business for choosing a name that does not leave us wondering what they make or do. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can't find significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources, to meet our general notability guideline. Them From Space 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filtrator[edit]

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

The only relevant google scholar hits are to a paper published this year in the International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, which is the paper referenced in the article. The only citations to this work are self-citations. MathSciNet has never heard of the term "filtrator", nor of the paper about them, nor indeed of its author. It may be that one day filtrators become some standard part of order theory that many people study, and thus worthy of an encyclopedia article. But today is not that day. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined above, together with the apparent COI. (There may also be issues with the sourcing aside from these, but were the topic to become notable this would presumably be addressed as well.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. I tried Google Scholar but as with the nominator's experience on MathSciNet could only find Porton's own works using this term or citing his work. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term seems to be the invention of Victor Porton and there is no evidence that anyone else is using it. On a side note, it's interesting that the paper given as a source in turn cites WP three times.--RDBury (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus, that however it's not clear if a separate article is warranted. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom F. Shoup II[edit]

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

Convicted and given a fine and a suspended sentence for election tampering. Too insignificant to even warrant WP:BLP1E. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Shoup Voting Machine Company and the RF Shoup Company appears to be notable and I can find reports about them going back as early as 1929, but I'm not sure if there is enough on this guy (who appears to be a relative of the founder). The subject and the incident mentioned probably belong in an article about the company/companies. Location (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll second that comment. The series of Shouptronic voting machines, the Shoup company and even the Shoup family as a whole (with members still in the voting systems industry today) all likely meet the notability bar, but R.F. Shoup II likely does not. The references here don't seem particularly reliable. There is an extensive history of voting machine companies that WP would greatly benefit from having articles covering though. Electiontechnology (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:09, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge. I was disappointed to learn that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Shoup Voting Machine Corporation (its actual name) which was very significant in the history of elections in the United States.(quo vide Voting machine) I made an Article Needed note on Talk:Ransom F. Shoup II to myself or any motivated editor is making an effort to improve Wikipedia. When the article on the company is done, the sad ending of Ransom F. Shoup II can be merged in. patsw (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is not a WP:STORAGEFACILITY. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. I've created the company article, but I'm not 100% certain that II committed his crimes while with that company. Apparently he had a falling out with his father when he tried to oust him (while papa was in the hospital). He may have set up another, similarly named company (now where did I see that?). Yeesh, his company name's not even mentioned in the appeal ruling. More digging required. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum 2. As near as I can figure out, Ransom Shoup and Ransom Shoup II left and started R. F. Shoup Corp. in 1972.[14], so the latter's activities after that year shouldn't be merged into Shoup Voting Machine Corporation. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep until another appropriate article to merge it with is created. but until then keep,.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am sure those 35 words could find a better home. Kiltpin (talk) 18:21, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political offences in the People's Republic of China[edit]

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

I feel that this page should be deleted because it violates WP:OR (original research) and WP:INFO (miscellaneous collection of info), and is used to push a particular WP:NPOV (point of view) by the original creator who is now indefinitely banned. It's also poorly sourced as there is little in depth discussion on the mentioned offenses, and contains merely a list of some accused. The material would have served better in alternate articles such as Human rights in the People's Republic of China or Law of the People's Republic of China. LucasGeorge (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the POV problems inherent in the title. On the same grounds I oppose redirection to Human rights in the People's Republic of China though redirection to Law of the People's Republic of China would do. The article is about certain classes of offence against the law and constitution of the PRC and needs to be constructed in such as way as to refer directly to the way in which the courts would address these matters. We would not, for example, have an article entitled Political offences in the United States of America not because some of the offences referred to in this article do not have parallels in US law, but because without specific reference to the US constitution and statutes the concept holds little meaning. Anything else is POV. --AJHingston (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's wrong with the title? Some states have had laws that were specifically meant to define political crimes (e.g. Article 58 in the USSR), and I'd be quite surprised if nobody has published anything reliable on this subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that article is about Article 58 of the RSFSR penal code, which is precisely the point. If there were a verifiable category of offences identifiable in Chinese law which fitted this description, or even an internationally identifiable class of such crimes, as opposed to offenses against society, public order, or infringing the constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals, that would be different. To return to the US example, what offences would we include in the hypothetical Political offences in the United States of America? Sedition, treason, espionage on behalf of a foreign power, terrorism, electoral law offences, various types of political protest, or should it include other things marking someone out as a bad citizen? We would say it was absurd to try and create such a category, yet clearly there are all sorts of things that are offences against the body politic. --AJHingston (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The expression "political offences" is not a neologism. For example Card, Cross and Jones Criminal Law has a chapter on "political offences", which, includes in particular, treason and offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989. "Offence of a political character" was used as a term of art in section 6 of the Extradition Act 1989. I am under the impression that that concept was used by other countries as well, and that there was some kind of treaty about it. We have an article on Political crime. Whether the term can be accurately applied to the offences included in this article is a different matter, but needs to be addressed directly, by looking to see if there are reliable sources to support that classification. James500 (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books seems to return results, including this. Using different search terms[15][16][17][18][19][20] returns a much larger number of results. James500 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the title, this article started out at List of offences that attract jail terms in China and was moved to List of political offences that attract jail terms in China and then to its present location by persons other than the creator. James500 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears to be well-cited, and from what has been found online, more sources could be added to show notability. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like the subject has indeed received significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This consists of identifying material (any political act that that particular government deems to be an "offense") which should be covered elsewhere as "offenses". The title is inherently a POV re-classification of other news/material. That would be like starting a fork from the "Occupy" articles entitled "political park use ordinance violations" and covering the Occupy protests there. This article is inherently a POV fork. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree that the title is inherently POV. "Political offences" will refer, in this context, to offences that are considered to be inherently political, i.e. where a political motive is an element of the offence that has to be proved in order to secure a conviction. That presumably isn't the case with park use ordinance violations because, I imagine, it would not be a defence for the person who committed the violation to say "I did not have a political motive". Whereas, if a person was charged with, for example, a constructive levying war under the Treason Act 1351, saying "I did not have a political motive" (or more precisely "it was not my purpose to effect an innovation of a public nature, such as a change in the law, or the opening of all prisons (as opposed to a particular one), or the like") would reduce his liability to riot, which has a lower maximum sentence, because a political motive, in those terms, is an element of that offence, but is not an element of riot. James500 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this is an encyclopedic topic, presented historically, sourced well, and written in a neutral tone. I do concur with A.J. Hingston (above) that there needs to be more specificity in terms of underlying legal doctrine and specific code citations, otherwise it comes out as a laundry list of dissident cases. This, however, is a content matter for discussion and modification in an editorial setting and not sufficient cause for deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Suggestion We have a baby/bathwater problem with AFDing this article, so please don't delete it too quickly, at least not until a real solution comes up. Issue: we don't have an Outline of Chinese law which would facilitate organizing Chinese legal system data coherently such as that which appears in this article, and there will be more AFDs on such subjects until we do. Because we are not well organized in the subject matter, and because the article itself is not yet well-developed, does not mean we should be so quick to vaporize it. That said, we should be able to fix the problem fairly easily. The information in this article largely reflects (1) the history of both the Cultural Revolution and the general Legal history of China, and (2) the current state of the Chinese legal system as it pertains to criminal law, but the article on the Legal history of China is too general a topic to include some of the important data presented in this article. It seems to me that much of this article's information in the first section could be incorporated into the articles on the Cultural Revolution and Chinese legal history, while the information in the second section (the current issues) should be part of an article on the Chinese Criminal law, which currently does not exist. So if someone would create an Outline of Chinese law and the article on the criminal law of China, similar to the English tort law, and then move this article's data into the appropriate places, we'll have saved the article's important information, but in a more organized fashion. Sctechlaw (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search for China Chinese 'Criminal justice system' on WP returns many results which could provide a good start to an article on Chinese criminal law. Sctechlaw (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the entire Category:Political repression in the People's Republic of China, of which an outline could be made. Sctechlaw (talk) 03:50, 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Ian Andersen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think it's about time for a second AfD. The first was in 2007, and had only two participants. Since then, the article has remained a spam piece, and really doesn't establish notability; upon a search, I couldn't find anything useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's successfully advertised all over en.wikipedia for years. We can spend a week discussing it or someone can clean it up. Discussion seems to be preferable to clean up, but I don't know why five minutes of editing is so low on the scale of things to do. Pseudofusulina (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand your rationale; because the article has been here for years, it means he's notable? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article was discussed and kept before. What about the two keeps that cited sources? Did those sources disappear? Is it bad to have spam on en.wikipedia? I think so. It should be removed. But these discussions here (Articles For Deletion) don't seem to lead to cleaning out spam. I don't understand why you didn't remove the spam before drawing undue attention to this. I don't understand why only this article and not all its related spamvertising should be deleted.

It seems that this is about this discussion, not about the article at all. I think it's a waste of time that could be spent improving articles. These discussions also seem to be about deleting most of South Asia from en.wikipedia, but that's another story. Anyway, it seems pointless. It's spam. The spam wasn't bad enough to be deleted. It's attached to other spam that wasn't even nominated. Improve it. That's my vote. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable enough; the sources in question don't, to me, demonstrate notability. That it went through AfD and was kept once doesn't mean much; see WP:Articles for deletion/William Andrew Dunckelman (2nd nomination) and the associated first AfD as an example. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually the third AfD. The other two were kept for lack of participation rather than on policy. I don't think the two sem-reliable sources I found (Allmusic, IMDB) add up to a roaring career success that meets WP:BAND and WP:BLP. And check 'what links here' and get rid of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find only one mention in an independent reliable source (including searches using KIA) [21]. This is not enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. I think a previous editor had it right about WP being used for advertising, as articles have been created for KIA's recordings too, none of which seem to meet WP:NALBUMS, such as F-1 Papillons - 'Best Of' K.I.A. & Shinjuku Zulu; DXLR8 - Downtempo 'Best Of' K.I.A. & Shinjuku Zulu, Sonorous Susurrus, Adieu Shinjuku Zulu, Kiss the Honey, Honey, Various Chimeras , Shinjuku Zulu. Should we add these to the this deletion request, and do it as a group? Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Some other sources have been found, which is good but several of them are of pretty poor quality. "Popmatters" advertises for submissions, for example; the Radio 3 website is one that anybody can sign up for, [22] and the very short reviews in a local alternative weekly (Exclaim) don't really make a significant claim either. But overall, the rest is enough to push the notability of this artist over the edge for me. Assuming the article is kept, I agree with the suggestion below that the albums and songs themselves don't meet the grade and any sourced information should be merged into the artist's article. And User:Neuphoria, who has commented below and who shares the same name as K.I.A's record label (which in itself doubles as K.I.A's website[23]), needs to stop using WP as a means of publicity. Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim is a monthly music magazine, not an alternative weekly. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with alternative weeklies. Sources don't have to make claims, they have to cover the subject significantly. Anything worth citing in a decent article on the subject, then, is clearly significant. The independent detailed descriptions and opinions on the quality of the music in the Exclaim reviews obviously fall under this catagory. I'm surprised an article writer of some note would speed by such considerations. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Per ~~Kud and SLP~~.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, per demonstrated coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Confirm finding by SLP that Google search yields precious little in terms of substantial independent coverage. Also share suspicions that this article was created as part of an aggressive spamming campaign, and that this article is only the tip of the iceberg. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep huh? He's been covered in Exclaim![24][25] and allmusic.[26] Both are accepted RS's. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by 86.44.38.30, a third Exclaim! article [27], a review in PopMatters [28], plus the the Toronto Star article linked above by User:Slp1. Whether his albums warrant individual articles is debatable; the subject himself meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 01:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND # 1. Three album reviews in Exclaim! and a review from Popmatters (both on the music project RS list Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) is sufficient grounds to keep per WP:BAND. The write-up in the Toronto Star again sufficient for WP:GNG. Google is not a proper "search" tool to use. I didn't get to do a search; I cited the article. Argolin (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews in major national publications Globe and Mail, [29] and [30] as well as the Toronto Star, etc etc. Also, a major-label artist (Sheryl Crow), covered a song of his, released on a William Shatner recording [31] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuphoria (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sources, passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND#1. And, about the current state of the article, "AFD is not cleanup". Cavarrone (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might borderline-meet wp:notability. But the whole network of articles on him and his work looks like a wiki-saavy PR machine project/construction trying to make a big Wikipedia position out of little notability. What it really needs is probably to take all of the articles on him/his works and condense them into one article on the artist. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Arguments that the subject lacks coverage in reliable sources have been demonstrated to be incorrect. The subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BAND via the coverage identified.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:13, 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 no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Faith[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BLP (verifiability, no original research) and no evidence that subject fulfills general notability guidelines. Nothing apart from the subject's own promotional material used as reference. I have removed links to the front pages of an internet forum and three news/fan sites which provided absolutely no information on the subject. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better references have been added, this subject easily meets general notability requirements, and this article should not be deleted! wrestlingmark9999^Speak 10:02am, 20 January 2012 (ET)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more better quality references, this subject easily meets general notability requirements, and this article should not be deleted! wrestlingmark9999^Speak 10:10am, 21 January 2012 (ET)

The person who suggested this page be deleted has not responded to any posts on this discussion page, or to messages sent to him on his talk page. Again, better references have been added and this article should not be deleted! wrestlingmark9999^Speak 8:15pm, 25 January 2012 (ET)

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) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more better quality references, this subject easily meets general notability requirements, and this article should not be deleted! wrestlingmark9999^Speak 10:59am, 29 January 2012 (ET)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.82.150 (talk) 16:59, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Stifle (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Monro Jnr[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG questionable, to say the least. bender235 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no doubt in my mind that this article was a COI situation, driven by a publicist. I had some dealings with it roughly a year ago & tracked the editor down off-wiki. It was not difficult. On the other hand, there were claims of some big following in the Philipines and I regret that I did not follow that through, after ascertaining that the sources provided were inappropriate. He may indeed be notable there - do we have a Philippines project? Is it worth posting anote there? - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could always leave a note at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. They have robust discussions on their talkpage, so your note would likely reach some people.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Matt Monro Jr. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way before my time, but a search in Google News Archives reveals a lot of secondary sources from the Philippines.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough GNews coverage to support a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:38, 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 no consensus. Keeping in mind the result of the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexam, and the arguments put forward there which haven't changed, with so little discussion on this AfD, we can't reasonably say there is any consensus is this case. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexam VG Gold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lexam VG Gold (2nd nomination)

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

I have nominated this article for deletion because I don't think that it meets the notability guidelines. In particular, it lacks any depth of coverage. "Lexam VG Gold" is mentioned a lot on the net, but almost always in press releases or as part of a stock analysis. I couldn't find anything on the company in online newspapers. It's not even mentioned in the Timmins article (diff in case that should change), even though it's located in the Timmins Gold Camp, and the population of Timmins was only about 43,000 in 2006. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a junior mining company hoping to find a motherlode. Perhaps they will become notable one day, but they haven't done so yet. PK T(alk) 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This company is so non-notable that it can't even inspire comments. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:42, 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 08:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greta von Amberg[edit]

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

Prod removed fails WP:N.Article also has copyright issues Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing significant or impactful from this character. No journals have used this character at all. No news have covered this character at all. No books have covered this character at all. --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only on copyright issues: the listing has closed, pending evidence of some copyright issues. There's no visible duplication of content and any similarities may easily be the result of two people describing the same series. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Musicfreak7676 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I say ditch because there's little-to-no information, unless someone wishes to clean [it] up and make [it] worth keeping.
— _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Withdrawn the nomination as the copyright concerns have been clarified and another user has worked and improved the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Lowell[edit]

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

~~Prod removed fails WP:N and has copyright issues Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - Even when this character lasted for many years, there is no known reception on and significance from this character at all. No real-world scholarly sources are found, no books are found, and no periodicals are found about her. --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Musicfreak7676 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I say ditch because there's little-to-no information, unless someone wishes to clean [it] up and make [it] worth keeping.
— _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pending - Still don't know why this character is worth keeping, but Raintheone has done a better job than I. Nevertheless, the article needs some work. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This character was on television sets for 40 years. The series was broadcast around the world. It screams potential. I think that passes GNG and It just needs some work. I've started to add some sources for the basics. The character's longevity means that their is a potential for sources to be found - you just have to do some searching the net, books, archives etc...Rain the 1 22:35, 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 speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next Barbadian general election[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Seems to be quite a collection of these "Next general election" articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Genre Everything[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this band. touring lacks coverage. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. I didn't find anything passed listings. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete you'd expect to at least get some mentions in mainstream press, which this band doesn't. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and appears to fail the notability guidelines for music related subjects. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator after move/merge performed -- The Anome (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor straws[edit]

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

Lacks notability for standalone page. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice if sources are found and the notability guidelines satisfied. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite to include only fully referenced and verifiable facts -- a search on Google Books for "flavor straws" finds numerous reliable sources attesting to their existence. In particular, The Journal of the Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Volumes 5-6, p. 275, (1956), quote: "Flavored straws (Flav-R Straws) are now available for general use. These straws have a large diameter and are very flexible..." and Milk plant monthly, Volume 45, p. 68 (1956), quote: "New Flavored Straws For Use in Milk Drinks [...] A new type of straw with built-in flavor for use with milk drinks has been introduced by Flav-R Straws, Inc." There is also a two-page advert for the things in the 29 Jul 1957 edition of LIFE magazine, again findable via Google Books.
See also Sipahh for a modern version. -- The Anome (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about merge to Drinking straw? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I think they are sufficiently distinct to deserve their own article -- there seem to have been other brands at various times, and the U.S. Patent Office seems to have an entire classification category for patents about flavor straws. -- The Anome (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking straw already offers an overview of different types of straws, and I see nothing special about flavored straws that merits a separate page. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flav-R-Straws seem to have been a big phenomenon at the time in the U.S., and there seems to be massive nostalgia about them, with a huge number of references on the Web. If we can have an article for Sipahhs, we can certainly have one for Flav-R-Straws, and I would suggest also for the whole category, of which there seem to be at least three variants that have been marketed.

Even if we are going to merge the general concept of "flavor straws" into the drinking straw article, if we keep the Sipahhs article (as we should!), we should at least keep a stand-alone article about the genre-defining first product itself. -- The Anome (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That a brand of a particular type of product is notable does not in itself mean that type itself is notable enough to be given a separate article. For example, that the iPad (obviously notable) is a "glossy white-bordered capacitive touch-screen touchpad" does not mean we need to create a separate article for the latter. If we can prove that flavored straws have enduring notability, supported by secondary and reliable sources, then that is a different matter. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I suggest then that we move this article about the specific product to Flav-R-Straws, and merge the generic content to drinking straw for the time being (including suitably adjusting the redirect Flavouring straws). By the way, regarding the notability of Flav-R-Straws, I found a contemporary article, "CHOCOLATE STRAW FINDS BIG MARKET; Sales Up Sharply for Product That Gives Flavor to Milk Sucked Through It", by Joseph W. Dunn, New York Times August 19, 1956, Business & Finance section, page 139, entirely about the company, which was clearly quite a big phenomenon at the time.

If you agree, I propose that we speedy close this AfD process, and do this now.-- The Anome (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan, and I will withdraw the nomination after you perform the actions. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- The Anome (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to consider rewriting Flav-R-Straws so that they talk about the product specifically; and add reliable sources. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that: I've just noticed I left the editing of the renamed article half-finished. I've fixed it now. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination: Current version looks fine to me. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 10:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Molestation Device For Women[edit]

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

Article has been Speedily deleted in the past and has reappeared ChiragPatnaik (talk) 07:13, 27 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 07:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a substantially rewritten version of the previously deleted article. I've rewritten it based on the two sources that just about passed WP:RS (although I'm on the fence with the IBN one); everything else seemed to be a rehash of the same IGNITE press release. The second paragraph in the "Mechanism" section is unsourced, but I left it in (after rephrasing for simplicity) because it does describe a plausible method by which the device could measure nerve impulse rate. I think the two sources provided suffice for WP:GNG, but I'm not totally convinced, hence my abstention from !voting. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two reliable sources also seem to be a rehash of the IGNITE release. While I love celebrating innovation, especially by children, I am not convinced about the notability of this device. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, a kid's invention that won an invention contest, but is not yet in production - not yet notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still under development, and only covered by a news story. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 11:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete,I fail to understand why should this article be deleted. Innovations deserve a Wikipedia entry. If this was a developed product, you would have said Wikipedia doesn't promote products. If this is an innovation, you think it doesn't deserve an article. Anything which tries to bring a change in our society deserves an article even if it is an award winning innovation. I can name over 50 Wiki articles on innovations, ideas not yet made into products. So DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.229.196 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the source seem unreliable, given inconsistencies in the way the device is explained (does it detect nerve impulses or hormones, for example? Does the speed of nerve impulses really change?) Also I don't think detecting sexual assault is the difficult part of the problem, so I'd be surprised if this device went anywhere. Manu Chopra himself may be notable for winning the competition, but that is a different issue. -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete,When we posted the original research, you said Wikipedia is not the place for original research so we removed the research. When we explained the device in detail, you called it too long and edited it. Now we have edited it, you call it not notable. We have the entire research and feasibility studies of the project waiting to present it to the community. So DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.229.196 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.202.52 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riittäähän noita linnassa[edit]

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

Zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits, zero refs (for which it has been tagged for 2 years). Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 06:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I'm gonna go OTHERSTUFF here, so feel free to disregard closing administrator, in the event sources pop up... But when the TWENTY annual Hopeless Records charity comps got blown up by a deletionist onslaught, each far more sourceable than this obscure Finnish comp, that pretty much raised the bar for the inclusion of compilation albums. Precedent seems to treat comps more severely than individual albums by notable artists, which more or less get a free pass. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 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 A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Älä osta; varasta[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Allmusic never heard of it. Zero refs. Tagged for that malady for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 06:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L'Album[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage in gnews/gbooks. Zero refs, for which it has been tagged for 2 years. Allmusic never heard of it. Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Album isn't even listed at the artists article, 20 Fingers. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ultima Online for now. There is full consensus that the subject does not have separate notability, but the content of the article are encyclopedic and verifiable, and therefore should be kept. This boils down the debate to the relative merits between keeping the spin-off and merging, and later comments after the article's been trimmed seem to gravitate towards favouring a merge.

This AfD should not preclude Worlds of Ultima Online from becoming a separate article again, should the amount of relevant verifiable encyclopedic content increase to a level at which a spin-off becomes feasible. Der yck C. 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds of Ultima Online[edit]

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

There are no reliable third-party sources available to WP:verify notability of this game's setting, as distinct from the notability of the Ultima Online game as a whole.

To be more specific... there was a discussion on the talk page where an editor indicated that appropriate sources existed. But none were given, and their appropriateness was refuted. Any third party sources about the game either fail to mention the individual worlds, or barely mention them in a single line (usually with a plot recap). As for sources that talk about the "worlds" (not one world in particular), they use "virtual world" interchangeably with "online game". They talk about the game's mechanics and the game's popularity, occasionally substituting "world" for "game". Nothing that talks specifically about the setting.

Basically, improving this article WP:WONTWORK because there's no sources that can turn this from a level-by-level directory into something that explains this setting's reception and significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultima Online per WP:ATD and WP:NNC. Deletion is unnecessary, as discussions of major plot elements can easily be fit into a topic's main article with appropriate trimming. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you link to WP:NNC? Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. As I mentioned on the talk page, every update has a new world which is given ample coverage in reliable sources for game news. Dream Focus 10:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage about these various worlds, listing what they have in details, and reviewers commenting on them plenty. Article already had references to prove this. I added some more. Dream Focus 10:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: remarkably scant "coverage" in the sources you found. Zero information about reception or significance. Your sources barely mention the worlds by name in a sentence or two. The only information you actually added to the article was about the number of creatures, which is completely off topic. The general notability guideline calls for significant coverage, which is "more than a trivial mention". Shooterwalker (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you talk about a world without mentioning something about it? Mention the building room, the new monsters and creatures, the unique scenery, the new dungeons, etc. A review about a book, game, movie, or anything can only mention its name once, and then talk in detail about it without saying its name repeatedly. It coverage is given to the aspects of something, then obviously that is coverage for it. Dream Focus 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifying something exists might be enough to include it in the encyclopedia somewhere. And the main Ultima Online article DOES mention nearly everything already here. But having a source that offers significant coverage (more than a trivial mention, and with information on reception and significance) is what's needed for notability, and a stand-alone article. Otherwise it's just a WP:CONTENTFORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Spinoff content forks are listed under "Acceptable types of forking". Diego (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But WP:AVOIDSPLIT says that these forks need to be notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If its notable enough to be in the main article, its notable enough to be split and expanded into a side article. Dream Focus 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultima Online, which is notable. The content is largely good, just it belongs in the main article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it all fit in the main article though? Be rather long. Dream Focus 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:Pokemon test. (Just joking). Seriously, keep per WP:CONTENTFORK. This is a clear spinoff and the Merge votes make it clear that it would work as a section of Ultima Online, but it is already quite long. This should have never been called for deletion given that the sources are clearly verifiable, the WP:WONTWORK given at nomination is for "unsourced and contentious material", "original research", "undue weight" or "libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism". This is a waste of time. Diego (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly acceptable WP:CONTENTFORK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I would support a merge if it would result in a consensus. I still maintain that deletion is appropriate because there aren't sufficient sources to establish notability. We can only find trivial mentions of the worlds in third-party sources, nothing talking about their reception. But I'm not a zealot about this stuff and I'm always willing to compromise. The article is stubbish (4-7k) and could easily be merged with the information on the worlds/expansions at Ultima_online#Expansions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article. All of that can not be fit over there. Having a large chunk in the main article for this makes no sense, it best to put it to a side article as is proper. Just as the characters are in a separate article than the main series. List of Ultima characters. Same thing is regularly done all over Wikipedia. Dream Focus 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It easily fits. Even if all we did is take out the headings and copy and paste the whole thing to the main article, the main article would still not be large enough to even consider splitting. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It most certainly would not. Look at it carefully now. Would all of that fit over there? You'd end up erasing a large chunk of it for sure. Does anyone else believe you can shove that much text into the main article? Also does anyone believe it should go there instead of just a more convenient side article instead? Dream Focus 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5kb is nothing. We merge stubs like this all the time, especially when they're lacking in sources to meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is significant, especially for the items on a list article of this type. Dream Focus 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not using the definition of significant from the general notability guideline, which requires more than a trivial mention. Check the footnotes. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that other notable things have a list article for their worlds, such as List of Firefly planets and moons from the series Firefly. Star Trek has a series of articles for listing all of its planets, List of Star Trek planets. List of Doctor Who planets, List of Transformers planets, etc. etc. This is a valid list article, of a type commonly found on Wikipedia. It should of course be renamed to Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of "trimming" being done to the article now. I really believe people could understand the aspects of this notable game better with more content not less. Felt the same way for the last Ultima article you did this to of course. Britannia (Ultima) was merged [32] to a much shorter version. [33] I suppose all the details about the various worlds could be moved into articles about the specific expansion packs. [34] I still believe the article is notable enough to be kept on its own, but if the opinions of the closing administration is to eliminate the article, then the information should be moved to the appropriate articles for the various expansion packs. Dream Focus 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed anything other than wordiness and original research. Nothing that would affect understanding. If there's a verifiable fact that belongs there, add it back in. Even better would be something with significant coverage to establish notability. (WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The footnote adds that a "one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial".) Shooterwalker (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultima Online, where it would fit in well. No independent notability apparent. Sandstein 07:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultima Online; not notable apart from the game, and that article, while longish, could benefit from this information. Not big enough for a spinout at this point. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jayssel Lucelo[edit]

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

This article purports to be about a 14-year-old actor from the Filipino television series Walang Hanggan (ABS-CBN TV series). However, he is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article about that series, nor is he listed in the Cast section of the show's official web site. There is someone listed in the Internet Movie Database by the similar name Jayssel Lucelo, but that person has only one credit listed in IMDb, which doesn't match any of the four credits listed in this Wikipedia article. No sources have been provided at all. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - hoax article. Looks like it was created by the author to satisfy his dreams of being a celebrity. The name of the artist "Mark Jayssel Lucelo"' and the username of the creator "MjLucelo" looks really suspicious. -WayKurat (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate I have dreams of making my crush an actress or dancer. Not that it makes her notable though. Same here. Everyone has their dreams, but they don't have to make hoax wiki articles on themselves. Non-notable person, tagged as G3 and A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:39, 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. Met A7 by my take on it. Take to WP:DRV if anyone disagrees -- Samir 06:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Levin-Gesundheit[edit]

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

Only (barely) notable for the Harvard Class Day speech (see WP:NOT#NEWS). Maybe WP:TOOSOON. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. He was a small part of an event that doesn't have an article for itself. He hardly seems notable. Illinois2011 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Scott Levin-Gesundheit. I am NOT prominent. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.255.42 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page. Perhaps one day Scott Levin-Gesundheit will merit a Wikipedia page, but that day has not come. This page should be deleted as per Speedy Deletion criterion A7.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Eldridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; most sources are primary or mention him in the context of Chris Hughes, and no sources cover him in-depth. Most coverage is from gay blogs. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for both business success and LGBT activism; sufficient reliable sources, both general and non-blog LGBT news. AV3000 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to satisfy GNG -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided clearly satify WP notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rich young law school dropout.Has opinions shared by many and opposed by many,no big deal.--L.E./I prefer to include my email address but the software no longer lets me/12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Freedom to Marry: not enough for a standalone article. Maybe in time coverage will improve. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Seems to fall shy of GNG. - Haymaker (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well-known and influential figure in the LGBT community; plenty of sources, several of which do cover him in-depth. Note that the history of the user who recommended deletion shows a lot of activity dedicated to anti-marriage equality activism (i.e., the user is the creator of pages for people and organizations who are opponents of Freedom to Marry and Sean Eldridge). - User:angeladallara (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per AV3000. Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources (Fox News, New York Times, The Advocate, New York Daily News...)--В и к и T 21:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is from independent, reliable sources (Observer, NY Times, CBS News). Has played a significant role in the LGBT community and has received critical attention for political activism in this area. - 66.65.66.142 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His contributions to the LGBT community are publicly verifiable by many reliable, third party sources. - 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.231.212 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rúni Brattaberg[edit]

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

Nothing in this article is properly sourced, I cannot find any significant information about Rúni Brattaberg on the web, and it seems that the subject of the article is it's main contributor. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to have had plenty of roles in productions that have received coverage. Google Books shows coverage in The Wire and Opera, and there are several reviews in non-English sources: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Nothing that could really be called significant coverage of Rúni Brattaberg, but indication that he is significant enough in his field.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see coverage from multiple language reliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely passes GNG, but has sufficient RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (grinding my teeth). He's notable and has sung major roles in major opera houses. The article was in reasonable shape after User:Voceditenore added some reliable sources in March 2010 and some subsequent edits by others. It then went steadily downhill after User:Brattaberg started editing it this January. Still, WP:COI and lack of WP:COMPETENCE are no reasons to delete. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I listed this article for deletion, I had not seen the non-english sources and therefore I didn't really think there were any sources on the guy. You can imagine what I thought with no sources and the article being constantly edited by what appears to be the guy himself. If he is truly notable, then let's clean up the article and move on. Illinois2011 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Day[edit]

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

BLP of apparently non-WP:N author. One g-news hit, about one of her books being adapted for the stage, and performed, at the college she teaches at. I'm sure that she is actually a published author, but I can't find any book reviews or anything else to indicate her notability. Article is 90% referenced to her own website, a WP:SPS. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 03:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly notable, for as far as I can see.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks [[WP:GNG|significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:08, 3 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. The consensus below is that this company is not notable given the absence of independent, reliable sources discussing it or its products. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Axolotl (company)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This business is an architectural firm that provides bespoke metal and concrete coatings and decorative glass solutions for interior and exterior applications. Minor trade awards are not significant coverage; other references are self-published publicity material. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that this company could be notable if they are the largest and most well-known company in this niche market. Otherwise, I would say delete. Roodog2k (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as evidently unnotable. Ukrained (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a new technology, pioneered by the company, agree the are the first, and largest company of its type in the world. More citations are now added. Wansamabenlovin (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear evidence of notability for the company, and the article reads like an advertisement for it. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 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 after blanking by author; non-admin close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas erskine birch[edit]

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

Not Notable. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author has blanked the page, so I tagged it for a G7 speedy. That being said, I fear it may have been nominated for deletion somewhat hastily, there are a few hits for someone with this name on Google Books. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G4 by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Underwood's Fourth Album[edit]

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

I don't know how much the current article differs from the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Underwood's Fourth Album, but the album has no name, no tracklisting, and only three sources. Nothing notable here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Obviously this article will be relevant if/when the ~~article~~ album comes out. However, there is no information on it yet, and it will have a different name anyway. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Belcher[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this particular character. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think the character has enough info to have its own article.--TBrandley (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles contains no evidence of independent notability, only self-published and wiki material. Could easily be included in Bob's Burgers article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and appears to fail the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley mayer[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN as candidate for office. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominated article moved. The article has been restyled from Shelley mayer to Shelley Mayer to properly capitalize the subject's name. —C.Fred (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would have PRODed, but since it's here, I vote for delete per nom. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 04:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unelected candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. A redirect to a neutral article about the race describing all candidates would be fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, candidates for state legislature aren't notable for that reason alone. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. We will see lots of articles like these as we get closer to election time. Location (talk) 23:24, 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 redirect to Super_Star_(Arabic_TV_series)#Participants_and_special_guests_2. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed El Faleh[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. My understanding is that placing 4th on a version of Pop Idol does not by itself confer notability on a singer. Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sufficently notable - our convention is only to keep top 3 if they are considered notable. don't see it here Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 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?} 08:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know . The subject has Google News entries, that span from 2003 until now, but I'm not able to review these articles. Cavarrone (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the google translate wizardry ... I've posted in the first entry to demonstrate that -- though I understand how you could have assumed otherwise -- these entries don't all relate to the singer.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, Redirect to Super_Star_(Arabic_TV_series)#Participants_and_special_guests_2.Cavarrone (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warilla Grove[edit]

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

Minor and clearly non-notable shopping mall. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search on NewsBank of Australian newspapers brings up 75 results. Many newspapers are not yet digitised in Australia, so there are likely sources not digitised yet. They include references in Illawarra Mercury (Wollongong, Australia) (74) and Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia) (1). A quick search of they Sydney Morning Herald's website pulls up two trivial mentions like this one and this one that support this. Articles included are not one event, and cover several things including issues with anchor stores, a lottery ticket winner who purchased their ticket at the mall, a local taxi programme to provide local residents a taxi each way to the mall for $3, a theft of $30,000 from a store in the mall. --LauraHale (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are trivial mentions. They are not sufficient to establish notability, according to WP:ORG. Run-of-the-mill mall life such as police incidents, winners who purchased their ticket at the mall, taxi programmes etc. do not help to establish notability for the mall. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. Laurahale's search proves to me only trivial coverage exists. All malls experience theft, have someone win some money, no coverage exists about actual mall history, economic impact on region etc. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how this is notable.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LauraHale's results seem to indicate the absence of in-depth coverage. I conducted a Google search for ("warilla grove") and looked through the first 200 results; I found no evidence of significant third-party coverage. Google News yielded one hit: "$5000 fine for selling cigarettes to minor". The absence of any but trivial coverage persuades me that this fails WP:ORG. Ammodramus (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Number of ghits won't suffice. We need substantial independent multiple coverage in RSs. The mentions indicated are clearly trivial.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kizmeet[edit]

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

The article is a bare stub and has no possibility to expand. Plus, the website was closed as of today and the site redirects to Christian Mingle.com. If anything, this should be deleted as it is not notable and doesn't stand out from your average dating website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a few articles that mentioned the site launching, there's no other reliable coverage for this site- not even an article stating that the site closed. [40], [41], [42]. This site doesn't meet notability guidelines per WP:WEB.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I got an email saying the site was closed, so that is how I knew that it did. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok- I was pretty much saying that if the company didn't even get a "look who's closing" type of news article then it's genuinely not notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79

Ah, that makes sense. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per Tokogirl79. The subject received a bit of coverage in reliable third party sources at its initial launch. However, it lacks a significant amount of coverage needed to establish the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:05, 3 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Relationship Paradigm[edit]

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

OR essay. No sources to back up use of the phrase; neologism. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 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.