The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:G12 by Amatulic (talk · contribs). Begonia brandbygeana (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kauffman[edit]

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

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

While the subject might be notable this article appears to mostly be an advertisement for the management company with a big dose of COI as well. Eeekster (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 4 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. Tone 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R1soft Hyper-V VHD Explorer[edit]

R1soft Hyper-V VHD Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no significant coverage for this product. The only source in the article is the official website. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: one in a million of similar freeware tools. Though google reveals some news coverage, a tool of a kind receives such coverage just for its existence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to establish notability in the article. Zzarch (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo Sandberg[edit]

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

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

No indications of notability. This article appears to be based entirely on a memoir written by the subject's son and self-published on webs.com. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a mention on Google Books and one in NRC Handelsblad (behind paywall). Not conclusive though to show notability. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't really understand this nomination: there is plenty of indication of notability. Sure, the article is a memorial and needs to be rewritten; it is unsourced and needs to be sourced. But he looks like a war hero to me, and the Dutch don't have many of them. The "Vliegerkruis" is the Airman's Cross (snippet here), and they couldn't have handed out many of them for actions during World War II, considering that the Dutch Airforce consisted of a couple of Fokkers and a dozen bicycles. I have no doubt sources can be found, and I'll try to find them. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found a 950 word obituary in NRC Handelsblad, a major Dutch newspaper, which should establish notability. It's 28th October 1998, p.20. Unfortunately I can't add it because I don't speak Dutch.Scratch that, he appears to be the author of the NRC article, not the subject!--Eklektikos (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just have a look at his medals, several of them are from other countries then the Netherlands. Today was decided to keep the article on the Dutch Wiki. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I actually saw this article at new page patrol and decided not to do anything about it, not knowing enough in this area, although the article was clearly problematic. Since then, it has come a long way and now actually looks like something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Unless someone has evidence that his medals/awards were made up, I think this establishes notability. The article still needs sources, which may not be easy as for biographies of people that were know in earlier days are not always easy to find online (Back To Paper! Burn Your Kindle!). Perhaps it would be possible to find an obituary. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guillaume2303 S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:58, 10 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. Long-established practice is that major geographic features are notable.  Sandstein  06:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Vacii River[edit]

Valea Vacii River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One-sentence stub, no reliable sources about 10 pages into Google, seems non-notable. Pilif12p 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verified geographic feature, if the book sources are to be taken in good faith. Since Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, geographic features are considered worthy of inclusion. Google may not be the best way to find sources, since the subject is in a non-English-speaking country. (Searching "Valea Vacii" turns up more results, but since "Valea" is Romanian for "valley", that probably refers to the valley and not the river.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For geographic features, reliable sources are not only articles or books, but mainly maps. The river is represented on all detailed maps of the region. As far as notability is concerned, the Wikipedia rules do not provide any limits for geographic features - if the geographic feature exists it qualifies for an article.

Besides the river is part of the officially codified river network of Romania. The article indicates this official code which is used by authorities to identify the river. This in itself should justify the notability which been assessed by the water authorities of the country. Afil (talk) 05:46, 4 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. Tone 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet vs Amazon Kindle Fire[edit]

Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet vs Amazon Kindle Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bit of an odd one this, I can't really see how it's encyclopedic. The two subjects are clearly notable, but a comparison? My deletion rationale is based around WP:NOTCASE or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Pol430 talk to me 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports magazine. Carrite (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The bulk of this information is already available in the Comparison of tablet computers article, but anything else of value should be merged to that article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons above. This isn't a guidebook to new tablets and this stuff is already covered elsewhere.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete interesting, but properly does not belong here. Maxdlink (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - apparent content fork of Comparison of tablet computers. Also violates wp:NOTCASE, as pointed out by the nominator. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the incident is not notable enough to warrant coverage in an article.  Sandstein  07:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air India Flight 829[edit]

Air India Flight 829 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable incident. Doesn't meet WP:aircrash William 22:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -William 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This accident does meet WP:AIRCRASH in that there was serious damage to the aircraft. Whilst I can't say for definite that the aircraft was written off, there are no photos of the aircraft in flight after the date of the accident. Both pilots and an ground engineer were suspended post-accident. Mjroots (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete The description in the article falls short of the kind of serious damage that appears contemplated in WP:AIRCRASH. However, if someone has evidence the aircraft was indeed totaled, or even seriously damaged, by the fire, keeping the article would be in keeping with the policy. The lack of post-incident photos isn't prima facie evidence the aircraft was totaled. The article Air India fleet indicates that Air India owns five 747-400's (aka 747-437) and a note indicates "2 to be leased out, 1 stored" so there are reasons other than the aircraft being seriously damaged or totaled that it hasn't been observed in service. Circumspect (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The usual source for discovering whether a plane was written off or not is Aviation Safety Network. ASN doesn't even have an entry for this incident and anybody who knows ASN knows how comprehensive their database is.- William 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's covered under the ASN Wikibase, which isn't suitable for use as a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Why isn't ASN suitable as a reference in this instance? You've edited many crash articles and know that ASN is used as a source in many of them. It is also the only source usually for whether a plane is written off or not.- William 18:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's the ASN Wikibase, which fails WP:RS, as it's similar to any other Wiki. The ASN Database however, is a RS. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASN (not really a reliable source as a self-published website) says damage to aircraft was minor. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unremarkable incident. Didnt even generate all that much press.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, consensus to keep reached (no more delete arguments) Tone 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cockbridge[edit]

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

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

the subject is non notable, unverifiable (no sources at all) and has no prospect for expansion. U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination... didn't realise it has already been discussed. Sorry. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous articles are discussed multiple times here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-based on its protected cultural heritage status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any non-WP sources on its alleged Slovenian name. Might this be a joke? I'll change my vote if someone can verify this with some sources.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Changed to Keep per the listed heritage status below. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Keep as listed heritage structure, per Eleassar below. Clearly, more can be added with time. The Slovenian name appears to refer to a male chicken, not a part of the human male anatomy, and there is a Cockbridge in Scotland. One of the contributors to the last AfD said that they knew Ljubljana well and it was not notable, from which I infer that it exists. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not treat every bridge as notable, even if the name when translated into English might amuse some schoolchildren. --AJHingston (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is basically nothing available about this bridge apart from its location. Can be mentioned in a list of bridges in Ljubljana or similar, but at this point there is no need for a separate article. --Tone 12:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with finding more content. Now happily changing my opinion to keep (though it is far from a comprehensive article). --Tone 16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly Merge to Gradaščica or elsewhere. There are several other one-sentence (as of now) articles about notable bridges in Ljubljana. The Cock Bridge in Ljubljana actually exists and is notable, because it was built upon the plans by the architect Jože Plečnik and because it has been protected as cultural heritage.[1][2] (in the textbox) An image is available online[3], and as it is between the Eipper Street and the Gradaška Street, the location is exactly known.[4] Probably, more on this bridge could be found in the National Library of Slovenia or elsewhere. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence about why it is notable and a source. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on its protected cultural heritage status. Doremo (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gradaščica or maybe keep. We now have notability (sortof), source(s) and a location. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep National monument, sources exist. Thanks to Eleassar for starting expansion and referencing; hopefully more can be added and surely some local Wikipedian can take a pic. Unfortunately I cannot read the language to help, but there must be at least one more source out there, perhaps in a book on the architect. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scooby-Doo Project[edit]

To watch the 9 minute video on YouTube, visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsA6_Qh_jw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.124.130 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scooby-Doo Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is also a non notable scooby-doo episode. I couldn't find any reliable source. mabdul 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a non-notable promo Cartoon Network made from already existing Scooby-Doo footage with a thin plot, redubbed voices, and rushed 'animation' to cash in on Blair Witchmania, something they did for alot of pop culture references in the late 90's with many of their classic shows. Nothing notable to be found, just internal promos only remembered by the crufters who just need to move on into the present. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I remember this and while it was a very cute animation promo, it wasn't an actual episode and it doesn't have any reliable sources to show how this is notable enough for a wikipedia entry. This is the type of thing that is best left to fan wikias to keep track of.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Abundis[edit]

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

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

Doesn't look like much information is added to the article. It has no importance in my opinion. Creation7689 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I also looked carefully through the various Google searches and found nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could have been dealt with via ((db-person)) or ((prod blp)), imo. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Coastal Refinery[edit]

Khalifa Coastal Refinery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable and no notability asserted. This may partly because the refinery doesn't actually exist yet as both the only two references make clear. Speculative and crystal ball gazing.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is clearly established. I added some references, but there a lot of more media coverage, including by the mainstream agencies like Reuters. Also disagree with CRYSTALBALL as details of the planned project are published and available by different media sources. Beagel (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient substantial RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:42, 8 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 School District 44 North Vancouver. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braemar Elementary School[edit]

Braemar Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

School through grade 7. Convention with such schools is (I understand) to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Zero refs here, and thus zero RS-supported text to consider merging. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Tagged for lack of refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to School District 44 North Vancouver, per the lack of sourcing. NLinpublic (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - cannot see the point in redirecting to an unreferenced nd poss copyvio list. Fmph (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any clear evidence of Copyvio on that page. Please provide diffs or a Duplication Detector report. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fmph, if you are suggesting that School District 44 North Vancouver is possibly copyvio, there is other evidence that this school belongs to that district, so I don't see any problems with a redirect. NLinpublic (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per usual practice for elementary schools. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to School District 44 North Vancouver as per usual practice based on precedent for primary schools. Note that Outcomes may be an essay but it simply documents facts as they are without expressing opinion, and '...is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines and i don't feel redirect is worthwhile.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:33, 8 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. Tone 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley/Allentown AHL team[edit]

Lehigh Valley/Allentown AHL team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

article based on an assumption that a yet to be built arena (Allentown Arena) will host a specific team (Adirondack Phantoms). I don't believe there's been any acknowledgement, let alone statement, from the American Hockey League regarding any relocation yet. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure speculation and crystal balling at this point. Once an official announcement is made no prejudice on recreating. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also delete speculatory redirects Lehigh Valley Phantoms and Allentown Phantoms. TerminalPreppie (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and DJSasso. I could see a redirect to the arena if I squint really hard, but I don't think this is a particularly viable search term, so deletion seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystalish speculation until an official announcement has been made. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. Who's to say that the Flyers' organization doesn't change their minds? Glens Falls is, after all, an established, traditional AHL market. Ravenswing 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even though there is probably a better than 50/50 chance this happens, it's too early. If an official announcement is ever made, then the article can be re-created. For now, it's speculation. Patken4 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Should this be userfied in case an announcement is made soon? Patken4 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? There nothing substantial in the article, and a lot of it is pure speculation (color scheme etc). TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't imagine that an announcement could be made "soon" or even "in the foreseeable future" when ground hasn't even been broken a contractor hasn't even yet been chosen to build the arena. Beyond that, look ... would it take any of us as much as a half hour to create such an article? Userfying is useful when there are references and information that would be difficult to compile. This isn't such a case. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They started demolishing buildings in November of 2011. I live a block from the arena. Everything's been official for awhile. Not sure why this was ever deleted.]]
    • Beyond that any admin can hit the undelete button and get everything back anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable enough for an article. The "keep" opinions do not address the analysis of the quality of the sources, instead going on at length about tangential issues such as other articles or user conduct.  Sandstein  08:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Mehmood Khan[edit]

Ehsan Mehmood Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This analysis is essentially a summary of NLinpublic (talk · contribs)'s discussion here. Using this version of the page, there are seven sources. None indicate notability per either WP:N or WP:PROF. That is, none discuss the subject of the page in detail; instead, most are citations of the individual's work indicating he has written articles for newspapers and the like. Below are the seven sources used:

1. [5] dead
2. [6] An article written by Khan, which does not establish notability
3. [7] A page indicating he is an alumni of "National Defense University"; a source, not an indication of notability
4. [8] Khan is cited by another author - not an extensive discussion, merely two brief paragraphs in which Khan is quoted (it's a little more complicated than that, but irrespective does not establish notability)
5. [9] One of Khan's articles is mentioned as a see also in an academic paper, no indication of notability
6. [10] As with 5, Khan's work is used as a see also rather than an actual discussion of Khan himself; does not establish notability
7. [11] A third example of Khan being cited, not being discussed (on page 28, footnote 5)
8. A variety of external links have been added to the bottom of the page; these all appear to be written by rather than written about Khan and thus do not establish notability.

There is no demonstration of notability in that there is no discussion of Khan, his actions or his publications. An academic (or in this case an analyst) being cited does not establish notability. Since NLinpublic's analysis, additional pieces written by Khan have been added [12] but none are about him. There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding notability - merely having published pieces is not sufficient to pass notability; the page's subject must be demonstrated independently notable through discussion by others. Since the page's subject is from Pakistan, we could use Urdu sources per WP:NOENG if they can be located but to date none have been integrated into the page (and would require careful vetting due to translation issues, natch). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunate delete - My (very) full rationale is linked above, and there's more discussion on the talk page that might be worth reading, most of which (an example) I participated in. The gist of it is that Khan writes a lot, but doesn't have anything written about him and fails the GNG and ACADEMIC. NLinpublic (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is not determined by what happens to be in the article right now. The question is: is there evidence of notability anywhere? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we aren't to judge what's in the article right now, then what do we judge? Potential? The article has been heavily edited and added to, and you aren't going to find many other good sources easily. NLinpublic (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm asking whether anyone knows of further sources. I don't. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone knew of other sources it probably wouldn't be at AfD, would it? </dry> :p NLinpublic (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... NLinpublic (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete - I'm very surprised to find that such a well-known analyst as Khan is barely mentioned by anyone else, but such seems to be the case. It is conceivable that he's widely discussed in Urdu or other non-English languages, and I feel we ought to check properly that that's not the case before we delete - help, anyone? But apart from that we have no choice, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOENG, if such sources are available then they can be used to demonstrate notability. Naturally, this will open the unpleasant can of worms that is translation. However, until these sources are found, the point is moot. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination in the face of acceptable sources in Urdu or other languages, but until they appear... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have tried to save the article,giving main points and tips of the reliable sources to verify the notability of the subject in Urdu.But unfortunately it has been ignored rather than providing the sources that would establish WP:Notability. I have already searched the google in English and Urdu,but found nothing,even not just one reliable source to qualify the notability of the subject.Thus I support the move by User:WLU. Justice007 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: #1 has been archived on web.archive.org: Adil, Farooq. " General’s Gospel." The Financial Daily. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says: "As for the conflict prevention and resolution, Kayani has taken hosts of measures. In response to post-Mumbai war rhetoric of India’s politico-military elite, Gen Kayani resorted to tri-pronged defence diplomacy, according the defence analyst Ehsan Mahmood Khan."
  • Unfortunately the discussion seems to be citing his words, but it does not seem to discuss the person himself in detail.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Also is the Urdu name indicated in the English article written correctly? When I do a Google search of "احسان محمود خان" I only get this Wikipedia article and Wikipedia mirrors.
  • FourDaysLife says that the Urdu for the full name is correct, but it may also be written in Urdu as "Ehsan Khan" or "Khan" - ""احسان خان" and "خان" " WhisperToMe (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition has he been discussed or published under the name "Ehsan Khan"? Are there other spellings of the name that have been used? Has anybody searched with the word "Mahmood"? or Has anybody searched with the word "Mahmoud"?
• WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in reply: First,the creator of the subject should know the correct spelling of the name and full information and sources that verify the WP:Notability , if not then creator should not take a risk to creat article on the wikipedia having not one reliable source.

Second,in google search,if you a well known person with wrong spelling clicking,in google search automatically appear,"Do you mean that"? and then with wrong and right spelling both names information displays. For the surety, I searched again the names mentioned in your comment,but find nothing except actors,dancers and singers etc. Justice007 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean different spellings (not necessarily wrong ones per se, because names in languages used in Pakistan can be written multiple ways in English). While alternate spellings may come up, they don't always. For instance I can search "Yugi Muto" (fictional character in Yu-Gi-Oh!) but Google won't tell me that there are many other ways of spelling both his given and family names (Muto, Mutoh, Mutoo, Mutou, not to mention ones with macrons and circumflexes) (Yugi, Yuhgi, Yuugi, and ones with macrons and circumflexes) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes OK,your point is valid.But creator has written the spelling of the subject,s name correctly,and proof is that that subject itself has written serveral articles in different newspapers with "Ehsan Mehmood Khan".Therefore,there, I think, should not be doubt about it,though I have searched with Urdu name too,find nothing,in Urdu there are not different spellings relating that name.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand this article about a reasonably notable defence and security analyst. Kindly look at contesting note of SubContinentalAnalyst given here. I also went through the edit history of Ehsan Mehmood Khan as well as one other article Ehsan Sehgal which interestingly is an autobiography of Ehsan Sehgal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has now changed his user identity as Justice007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under courtesy guidance of Nolelover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also operates under NLinpublic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) identity. It establishes the fact that Ehsan Mehmood Khan belongs to the same district /county of Pakistan wherefrom the parents /ancestors of Ehsan Sehgal also do. User:Ehsan Sehgal created his autobiographic stub with courtesy /editorial assistance of Nolelover. It is unfortunate to mention that Ehsan Sehgal used the names of two of his daughters for making requests to avoid deletion of his autobiographic stub Ehsan Sehgal as per discussion /talk page of his article. Ehsan Sehgal shows that since acceptance (still debatable though) of his own autobiographic stub, he had been inviting troubles to the biographic stubs on people belonging to the said region in Pakistan. He has continuously been reverting and deleting the reasonably reliable references and external links provided by several editors and IPs in Ehsan Mehmood Khan and Nolelover had been unfortunately endorsing every thing he did for the reasons best known to the latter. There is no issue of WP:Notability or WP:Reliable sources at present with Ehsan Mehmood Khan. If an article with almost no single verifiable (online) source can be kept in the name of Ehsan Sehgal just because he made about seven requests to wiki-editors in the names of his daughters, then why not an article on a renowned defence and security analyst like Khan can be kept and expanded? Editors invited by Ehsan Sehgal have checked each and every source on Ehsan Mehmood Khan and have acknowledged that Khan has been cited and referred to by other reputable academics, scholars, organisations and policy makers in their articles and books published in USA, India and Pakistan. What else is notability then? Of course he is not as notable as William Shakespeare at this stage yet he appears quite more notable to me than Ehsan Sehgal, the brain child of Ehsan Sehgal now Justice007. I, therefore, ask the Wikipedia community to take notice of this dual standard and Keep and Expand this valuable article.--JC Bills (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel positively evil reading this, in spite of the mass of blue links impeding my eyes' progress. I am going to remove duplicate links so others don't have this problem. It looked like this prior to my removing the links. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed many more duplicate links from the posting.  --Lambiam 12:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...where do I start? The allegations of sockpuppetry and COI? The WP:IDHT attitude regarding writing versus being written about? The comparison to Shakespeare? Ahh well...

JC Bills, first I want to thank you for the work you've put into the article. Whatever else may happen, you are quite dedicated to your topic. Now, you point to SubContinentalAnalyst's comment at the BLPN. I won't spend much time on it, since all he does is say that Justice has been editing in bad faith ("egoistic edit feud") and repeat the same stuff that you have been saying for a while: that he is notable "beyond any shadow of doubt" and anyone reverting you is in the wrong. Next, you say that both Justice and I have or had two accounts, while forgetting to note that Justice changed his name because of harassment just like this concerning his possible COI. (My second account, NLinpublic, is pretty self-explanatory.) You add that Justice, after getting his own article created, has made life difficult for other Pakistani BLP's because he has a COI. Here's another way of looking at it: Justice has been editing those articles because that's what he's knowledgeable in. There aren't many editors on Wikipedia who focus on Pakistani poets and writers, and its not a stretch to say that Ehsan is an "expert" in that area. There has never been evidence of malice on his part, and his rationales and understanding of policy have been surprisingly accurate for an editor of his type. Lastly, you make comparison to the article Ehsan Sehgal, saying that there is a lack of verifiable sourcing there and so on. Here's something you should know then. All of those newspaper articles are online, and completely verifiable. At this moment, I have images of all of them on my computer, and if you wish I can point you to the website where you can get them yourself. There's no double standard. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nolelover, I really feel sorry if the above description of facts has hurt your feelings yet if you (impartially, justly and cool-mindedly) visit the above blue-coloured userlinks of accounts of Ehsan Sehgal and yourself, it (unfortunately) exposes the kind of Nolelover’s love for Ehsan Sehgal. Both of you had, indeed, been reverting the edits made in Ehsan Mehmood Khan for inclusion of references and external links. Interestingly, Ehsan Sehgal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been declaring various references and external links in Ehsan Mehmood Khan as self-promotional and reverting edits immediately within seconds after they were made by IPs and editors. Quite unfortunate that you still hold him to be a good faith editor - may be for his cherishing remarks about you as placed here and at a number of places in your talk page. Dual standard on the part of both of you is thus possibly irrefutable. I again request to drop such attitude and let this article on Khan kept and expanded. Thank you.--JC Bills (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I...I am speechless... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand I endorse the detailed contesting note of JC Bills. Of course, there shall be no room for dual standards on Wikipedia.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see JC Bills's comments in reply to Nolelover's stance.--JC Bills (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editors !voting "Keep" need to review the guidelines on notability. Notability is demonstrated, it is not asserted. In other words - pages are kept because people can find reliable, independent sources that discuss the article's topic. Pages are not kept because the editors who are !voting delete are mean, biased or have edit warred - see WP:ADHOM. Pages are kept because somebody managed to find reliable source that discussed the page's subject at length. Stop talking about the motivation of specific wikipedia editors. Focus your efforts on finding sources that have lengthy discussions of Khan specifically, or you are wasting your, and everybody else's time as the closing admin will discount your !votes. Deletion is not a democracy where number of votes matters - the quality of arguments are more important. To date there has been no actual reasons provided why the current sources in the page are adequate to establish notability; per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, they are not. Please review WP:GOODARG and the notability guidelines for academics to see what is required to avoid deletion. Please also review the expected etiquette during a deletion discussion and formatting required. Making a !vote BIG doesn't make it more valid, it just makes it more difficult to administrate the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability requires that there be coverage about the subject. I just don't see the significant coverage about Khan that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand - Some interesting discussion has gone in. Clearly, if the article is not as notable, it is not as non-notable too. Thus, deleting it would be received controversially. In such a case, it is better to give the benefit of doubt to the creator of the article. Besides, none can say that the sources on the article don't exist. At best, it can be said that the sources are "weak." Weak too for the advocates of deletion. The contenders believe the sources to be strong enough to verify notability. I think, when the person has been cited in one of the books published in the US and a number of other publications as shown in the references, it makes a good case for notability. In my view, it should be kept and expanded. After all, we are looking for notability and not nobility.--Intelligible (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)— Intelligible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete – I was unable to find multiple third-party sources covering this subject with much substance or depth (WP:BASIC). I was also unable to find many non-trivial third-party citations amenable to meeting WP:AUTHOR, or third-party documentation of accomplishments to pass WP:PROFESSOR. I tried searching in Urdu, but made no progress (my skills aren't stellar, but I tried to look carefully). This subject clearly exists, but doesn't meet WP:N at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with JFHJr. The individual doesn't meet notability requirements to qualify as encyclopedic. Stubbleboy 18:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Slowe[edit]

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

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully professional league. Ytfc23 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - this footballer came into the English Professional Leagues via Ghana and then Cyprus which has attracted media attention (I have added a couple of citations and could add more if required), plus he has been on the bench in many League games at Northampton and in FA cup matches at Yeovil and so is on the cusp of his first professional league appearance, plus he has represented both Northampton Town and Yeovil Town in many reserve matches and, in the case of Yeovil, in the Somreset Cup as well. Furthermore, the Academy he founded is sending young African players to Europe as well as making an important contribution to a poor community in Accra and running a semi-professional Ghanaian league team - see www.ghana-football-academy.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogpmsp (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:49, 6 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 Doha#Education. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Canadian School[edit]

Qatar Canadian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

School through grade 9. Convention with such schools is (I understand) to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Zero refs here, and thus zero RS-supported text to consider merging. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Tagged for lack of refs and notability since June. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  06:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Afghanistan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Indians in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is pure WP:OR and is being used as a WP:COATRACK. The article says "Indians in Afghanistan currently consist of those working in various construction projects, as part of India's rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan" but is actually about Indian intelligence apparently arming Baloch rebels and attacking Pakistan. Which also makes it a WP:FORK of the Balochistan conflict Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A very sound article which definately has a place on wikipedia taking note of possible terrorist activities by some organizations does not mean it is pov darkness shines must stop being offended with information he may not agree with 109.150.57.127 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it is a WP:FORK of the Balochistan conflict? It is not about construction workers at all? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and expand: This article is between stub and start class and is well sourced. The notability criteria is prominent on its own and as well as on all the sections cited. The nominator first tried to remove the information and has now nominated the article for deletion to by pass edit warring. The article is by no way a coat track since it contains only a small section (of few lines) about the Indian intelligence activities in Afghanistan which would still be there if the article was a lengthy one or even a GA class. That is called giving due weight to everything. Instead of deleting the article and it should be expanded on the areas it majorly covers. It would be a coat track article if it was based on the intelligence activities which it is not. This is like asking for a deletion of an article in its initial stages because it got a bit of critique while in that stage (that too not in much length). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article about construction workers or is it about Baloch rebels? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about both in general. It is about all Indians in Afghanistan and their life there. These are two notable aspects which are in the scope of the article. Further, your opening statement says that the article says it is about construction workers which is wrong since the article is not just about construction workers and the article also mentions in proper weight about the intelligence activities. Feel free to add the cultural parts if you like. I support the expansion. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not about construction workers the nwhy does the article start off with them? If it is only about Indians then why exactly are Baloch rebels being mentioned? Are Baloch's now Indian nationals? I am quite certain Balochistan is in Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is crediting all notable reasons for Indians being in Afghanistan. These are just two. If you have others with references, you can add them. But then again, we don't say why is the article saying that Indians are doing these three.. because that's what their notability is there. You can surely object to this by providing references to other kinds of notability which would only support expansion. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? You did not address my questions. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did see for your self. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note User:TopGun appears to be canvassing. [13] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informing the creator is not canvassing, infact it was actually your job which I completed. And I told him to inform all other major contributors since the current history only shows all other minor contributions and the article was once deleted on copy vio. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He had already been informed Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that... and there's no harm done in anycase if he already knows since it is not canvassing then. Or is it canvassing when only I inform the creator? Pretty self contradicting. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Afghanistan had a large Indian community (many Afghan Hindus and Sikhs were of North Indian / Punjabi descent), and although many of them have migrated to Pakistan or India now, this diaspora article serves to discuss that subject of interest. This source I used is in particular quite informative about the community and shows that it numbered around 45,000 which itself is a sizable population. The part about construction workers, as well as the presence of Indian intelligence activists suspected of spying and terrorist-related activities is recent history and would preferably be better accomodated in independent short sub-sections. I suggest using the format utilised in the article Afghans in Pakistan which has a separate section for "terrorism" right at the end, discussing alleged militant activities. A similar concept could be followed here, such as by having an "Alleged intelligence presence" section whose content should of course comply with WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and most importantly WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the article is well sourced and staying on its scope and this debate about intelligence and construction is better to be started on the talk page of the article and is no reason for it's deletion. That content is already in very short prose and complies with weight as compared to the article size. The article needs to be expanded on all other expects and this (which is a notable part of it) will seem better suited with it then if that is the problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete clearly a WP:COATRACK. The only aim of writing this article was to spread Pakistani wp:POV on the Balochistan conflict, the article also fails to provide neutral source to back up the claims on spying activites etc and ends up giving the sources with Pakistani POV. I also agree with the comments by Darkness Shines --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete because it is a WP:COATRACK and per reasons given by Darkness Shines and Ðℬig. JCAla (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Afghanistans Indian community is very involved in reconstruction and India itself is very Involved in Afghanistan so it makes sense to mention them via a separate article and these are just allegations about insurgency allot of countrys blame each other for cross border activities of a sinister nature this does not amount to pov I am sure India blames Pakistan for allot of mishaps within India there is no need to be offended by it there is a good mix and match of Indian and Pakistani sources so I dont see why the whole article should be deleted such emotional actions themselves account POV chill out guys Suppositries (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)This editor has few other contributions outside of this area, and this is his third edit to wiki, ever. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above user is a tad bit paranoid who believes you need a phd or something in that order to edit wikipedia ignore I suggest Suppositries (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if propaganda by Pakistani editors is removed from the article as there is scope for an article if it is not hijacked. --68.71.39.10 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the edits on the page by Pakistani editors seem to be in bad faith and a poor attempt to publish propaganda on Wikipedia. Why waste your time on this? Isn't there anything better for you to do with your time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.39.10 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith when interacting with editors or perceiving their actions. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This version of the article [14] is mostly neutral and contains only two sentences about such supposed activities; that sentence can be further fixed (or even removed zomg). Per WP:UGLY, this should not be deleted because it is a notable subject. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The article in its current state is well-sourced, and the topic itself appears notable. WP:COATRACK and neutral point-of-view concerns expressed in this AfD discussion can be addressed on the article's talk page and through editing, rather than entirely removing the article from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to keep since the article has been rewritten and now contains relevant content. I agree with Northamerica1000, the current version of the article is well-sourced and the topics now addressed are notable. JCAla (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However needs development on the History aspect. Historical ties with India extend for hundreds of years. AshLin (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is clearly notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Ample coverage has been found. Anything that doesn't belong can be discussed on the article's talk page, and removed or altered to be more suitable for Wikipedia. Click on the Google news archive link at the top, and the first results are about the president of Afghanistan commenting on how his government will take all possible measures for the security of Indians in Afghanistan, plus they be targeted and killed there. The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan. Dream Focus 12:12, 10 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 BlackBerry Curve. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BlackBerry Curve 9380[edit]

BlackBerry Curve 9380 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article shows no reason for notability, or why it deserves its own article, I believe it should be merged into BlackBerry Curve. Gsingh (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge- As per nomination, no other curves have their own article, why start here. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 17:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:19, 4 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. Tone 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Technology Muddenahalli[edit]

Indian Institute of Technology Muddenahalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. This institute does not exist, and per WP:CRYSTAL so shouldn't the article. The cited undated articles are in fact from 2009: here and here are articles with dates, discussing the statement by Veerappa Moily, and verifying the date in which it occurred. Since then, the institute is still merely a proposal. here is a year old report that says again that "Mr. Moily had recently stated that there is a proposal to establish an IIT at Muddenahalli" (my emphasis). I can find no evidence that this was approved, nor that 200 acres were set for it - the news reports discuss 200 acres set for VIAT. Muhandes (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - institution doesnt exist so neither should the article. Fmph (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nacchatar Singh Jhajj[edit]

Nacchatar Singh Jhajj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Tagged for notability since September, for lack of refs since 2007, and as an orphan for nearly 3 years. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing verifiability. I am unable to find any sources that can confirm any of the information in the article. I'm not saying this is a hoax, but simply no sources exist from which to build an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khaing Moe Lunn[edit]

Khaing Moe Lunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bio with zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Appears non-notable and OR. Created by an SPA. Tagged for lack of refs for well over 4 years. Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced Biography of a living person. No reliable sources found. No claims to notability supported. Promotional opinion piece. Essay or original research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, he isn't a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can verify from primary sources (Arakan Liberation Party web site) that he was assistant General Secretary at the founding of the organisation, and got arrested, released, and tried to get things going again. However, none of this activity appears to have been noted in reliable sources. A check of google scholar doesn't turn up any academic work on him, nor is he covered in any books. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 6 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. Tone 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Book Addict Diet[edit]

The Book Addict Diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:ESSAY ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is pure OR, plain and simple. I won't be surprised if this is speedied within the next hour, to be honest. It's sweet that someone wants to help others lose weight, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for this sort of thing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete - As TG says, this is OR in its purest, rawest form. Note the multiple parentheticals and use of the rare first-person noun? I share her sentiments that it sounds like a interesting diet (I'm a bookworm myself), but it doesn't belong in the Wiki. To the author: I look forward to reading this diet in a NYT bestseller within a few years. Hey, it sounds better then others I've seen up there... NLinpublic (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This isn't even an encyclopedia article at all. Circumspect (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Not encyclopedic (completely OR, and not well written at that), no references in article, no sources available on google books, google news, even just typing in 'The Book Addict Diet' in Google gives you nothing. --Stvfetterly (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - A hoax made-up by the author, bogus how-to, original research. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just because something is "made up in a day", or badly fails WP:NOTESSAY doesn't make it a "hoax"...put it this way; its not claiming to be something it isn't. NLinpublic (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax, author created other hoax articles as well. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Aur Mrs Khambata[edit]

Mr Aur Mrs Khambata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television program. No indications that it actually exists, based on Google searches. Based on the awards it has won, some internet evidence should exist. Possible hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I previously PRODed this for the same reasons (it was declined without reason). I cannot find any references to the program or the supposed awards it has won to indicate existence, never mind notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 3 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  07:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sotère Micberth[edit]

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

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

This artist is largely unknown in her own country - or anywhere else, as far as I know. Her father is fairly notable, but she is definitely not. Take not that her (possibly self-promoting) article at the french wikipedia has been deleted four years ago for failing to meet the notability criteria. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See above. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not finding anything substantial (except perhaps this), so insufficient evidence of meeting the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she does exist and works as an artist in France (probably makes a living out of it, too) as do thousands of other people, but that's it. As for the website you found, it actually offers free "virtual exhibition" services to just about anyone. All you have to do is send them 10 jpgs photos of your work and specify when you have done IRL exhibits and voilà, you're on their online catalogue ! (well, for honesty's sake, I suppose that they check that your art has some artistic worth) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:28, 4 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. Tone 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Fight Pit: Genesis[edit]

MMA Fight Pit: Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts event. Only a handful of notable fighters. Promoted by a non-notable promotion. Having aired as a PPV does not make the event inherently significant in any way. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no indication that this event (the first one for a new MMA organization) passes WP:SPORTSEVENT or any other notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As much as I hate the contents of the article and the fact it is simply a list of match results, the event appears to pass WP:GNG. There are enough potential sources from 'find sources' links above to make the article a well written article. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found no independent sources that don't fall under WP:ROUTINE--which is what this article is. Astudent0 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I got a lot of ghits, but I didn't find any sources with coverage that wasn't WP:ROUTINE. I'll admit I didn't check everything listed, but it seems like this event fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found nothing to show this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT or that any of the coverage is anything but routine sports reporting. Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 9 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  06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point-of-entry marketing[edit]

Point-of-entry marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is completely unsourced and I can't find any reliable sources. Also has been tagged as not notable. Kgeee65 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Point-of-entry marketing refers to marketing efforts and/or activities that are designed to "meet" customers and prospects at a company’s three main "entry points": the telephone, a website, and a physical location such as a store or office. You've got to wonder whether a being that thinks this definition is adequate, or even meaningful, is actually sentient. Claimed to be the recent coinage of a consulting firm. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Aur Gham/[edit]

Khushi Aur Gham/ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I believe this article may well be a complete hoax. Searches for this title generate no relevant results. Certainly a program that has been on the air for 17 years and received so many awards should have generated SOME internet footprint. At least one claimed award (2010 Indian Television Academy Award for Best Male Actor in a Negative Role) can be verified to be false. (Article claims it went to Ejaz Kapoor but the awards' own website credits Meghna Malik with that award.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per evidence (or rather lack thereof) given above; just blocked article creator for repeated removal of AfD notice, which doesn't augur well for attempts to establish notability asserted in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete db-g3. Blatant hoax. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 (unambiguous advertising) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)

Uros Planinc Group[edit]

Uros Planinc Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable band. Claims of notability cannot be verified. Google search on name "Uros Planinc" returns only sites controlled by the band itself (myspace, facebook, youtube, etc). No independent sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only sources I can find are Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and the like. No reliable sources seem to exist to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:V. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 3 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  06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meltemi (operating system)[edit]

Meltemi (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is pure speculation about a rumoured operating system. You will have to look through the edit history to see what content used to be there as it was blanked. See WP:CRYSTAL for more info. Millermk90 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Keep - no difficulty finding reliable sources - I have added a paragraph citing The Guardian's Technology Blog which is an allowable source (written by a journalist under a national newspaper's authority). I've also unblanked the former text, having checked it for copyvio: it seems OK on that score, though no doubt it needs further work. I agree with Millermk90 that the OS is not yet released: what we are documenting, encyclopedically, is the reporting in theWHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE reliable independent secondary sources of that system THIS IS STILL WP:CRYSTAL. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just wanted to point out that these sources are not necessarily reliable, since Nokia has made no comments on the OS at all, and the root of all these news stories is a Wall Street Journal article citing "anonymous sources." Additionally, the article makes claims that are simply untrue, such as the claim that it "was announced in 2011", when it was never announced at all, and the given reference actually says that Nokia refuses to comment at all. Millermk90 (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there is absolutely no ground for removal. WP:CRYSTAL applies only to discussion of the future events, while the article is about the ongoing effort. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CRYSTAL does not only apply to future events. It says, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Despite sources, this article really is speculation and rumour because Nokia has not formally made any comment about the product, despite nearly 2 months passing since the first rumours. Additionally, "more encyclopedic knowledge" is not yet available. Millermk90 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, you're right, that has to be the policy. On reflection I'm changing my !vote to delete (above). WP:CRYSTAL does apply here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems You're reading from the policy exactly the opposite to what it states. The information about Meltemi comes with no release announcement, but it is verifiable, thus passing the WP:CRYSTAL test. Just to be more precise: the WP:CRYSTAL prohibits articles on topics that are reported as rumors; the Maltemi is reported as an actual product with The Register confirming its existence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's based on sources, and I don't think "collection of product announcements and rumors" means that we must always delete - of course we don't want to list every single announcement, but this is regarding the number one smartphone and mobile device company. We seem to have articles before official announcement on everything regarding Apple, after all (see [15] still active). If people disagree, then might I also suggested merging with Series 40? The information itself is still useful, and shouldn't be deleted, even if the topic is deemed not to deserve its own article yet. Mdwh (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not about Series 40. So far analysts suggest that Meltemi would replace Symbian/S60 as the entry-level OS, i.e. the EPOC32 core will be replaced by the Linux core and the S60 UI from latest Symbian releases will be merged with MeeGo 'smartphone' UI. That's potentially dozens of end-user devices and dozen million sales - I don't see how it is unnotable when we have huge articles on Maemo and MeeGo which had very few end-user phones released and sold only several dozen thousands. Let it hang for now - if Meltemi doesn't really get any traction within a year or two, then delete it, right now it's quite promising to delete it right away. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 10:56, 4 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. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Yarar[edit]

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

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

Article about footballer who according to svenskfotboll.se (SvFF's official website) has never played in a fully-pro league and which fails the general notability guideline. Earlier proposed deletion was contested with no explanation. Jogurney (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has made no professional appearances [16] do does not pass WP:FOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without significant coverage this article fails WP:GNG, and since Mr Yarar has not played at a fully pro level, it fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Frye[edit]

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

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

BLP sourced only to IMDB. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failes WP:ENT. Animusv3 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have found verifiability of his works in enough sources to convince me he meets WP:ENT and enough coverage in books and news to convince me he meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WHen sources exist, being sourced only to IMDb is a reason to fix it if possible than it is to delete because it was not fixed by others. I'll be back after expanding and sourcing the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A short career (not surprising for a child actor at that time), but he had significant roles in multiple notable films and television productions. Passes WP:NACTOR.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting rationale: Article is a BLP. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Poor sourcing, per nomination, but seemingly enough acting credits to merit encyclopedic biography. Definitely not a slam dunk either way, but this looks like a Keep-and-Improve situation from a quick glance at the Google machine... Carrite (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 6 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  07:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pagnia Xiong[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Unknown label (their front page is selling his latest album...). All links are promotional. No actual references in article. Can't find any that pass wp:rs when searching. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability not established per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 3 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 Lee style tai chi chuan. (The proposed redirect target is a redirect there.) (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Family Arts[edit]

Li Family Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No notability justified, and the article is more a list of dot points. If the name is worth keeping then maybe convert it to a redirect to Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What is the topic of this article? I'm completely flummoxed. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan Article is poorly written, but I found mentions of the Li Family Arts so I think a redirect is best. Astudent0 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan This article lacks independent sources, but the significant (and sourced) material can be found in the Li Tai Chi article. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 8 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. CSD A10 would normally apply, except that there is a valid target to redirect to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo! Music Of The Vampire[edit]

Scooby Doo! Music Of The Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

per WP:CBALL, film/series not released. mabdul 10:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yikes. While this is actually a real movie, it's far from being what this article makes it out to be. This is the title of a Scooby Doo movie that's releasing in March. The plot in this article is WAY off from what the movie is going to be about. As far as I can tell, this isn't a reboot of anything and is meant to fall in with the existing canon. This is just pure speculation. As far as keeping it goes, it isn't due out until March and there just aren't enough reliable sources to support an article at this time, especially since it's direct to video. At most this would be a redirect to Scooby-Doo#Scooby-Doo_filmography. When the movie gets released we can see if there's enough buzz to warrant an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Comment. There's actually another article on Wikipedia for the actual movie here: Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire. It's being PRODed due to WP:CRYSTAL. This article that's up for deletion right now should be speedied for being a complete hoax, so I'm tagging it now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete since there is a movie of this title, its not really a hoax, just deeply misguided. However, CSD:A10 (article that duplicates an existing article) does apply. Tagged as such. Sparthorse (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. SmartSE (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NorthgateArinso Reward Solutions[edit]

NorthgateArinso Reward Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Paucity of substantial rs coverage suggests lack of notability. Tagged for zero refs for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged. Also fails WP:CORP if speedy declined. ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a copyright violation. Article was cut-and-pasted from Beerware with only a few of the words changed. Also WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CandyWare[edit]

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

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

Neologism - no proof given that this term has actually been used with this meaning. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Rmartin271 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)If all the users had the right to delete articles than Wikipedia would be empty. It might not seem important to you, but can be important to others. In this case Martin Bestawros is trying to prove that he has his own license. When people buy his products from iTUNES or from the web how are they to believe that this license is real. They will search it in google and guess what the first result will be: it will be the wikipedia candware post. Hope you are now more educated about the topic and will reconsider and not just go around deleting pages on wikipedia.[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Wikipedia describes what is notable; it doesn't prescribe it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTADVERTISING --Northernhenge (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any reliable sources here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as prodder. Concepts must catch on before Wikipedia mentions them, not the other way around. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete WP:NEO that quickly becomes a WP:PROMO for a specific individual (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dj markomix[edit]

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

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

Autobiography of a Wikipedian contributor. Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 07:50, 3 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. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhola Pagal[edit]

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

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

Movie lacks refs, gnews hits, and gbooks hits. Appears to lack substantial independent rs coverage. Tagged for notability and lack of refs since September. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a starting point, IMDB has nothing on this film... but as they are quite incompplete for Cinema of India, I looked elsewhere... to no avail. Even when combining the title with production company or lyracist... nothing. All I could find were non-RS that simply mimicked the information verbatim from the Wikipedia article. We have no verifiability the the film even exists. If not a hoax, it sure feels like one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It might not be a hoax, but it certainly doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 6 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. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Can't America Have Human Rights?[edit]

Why Can't America Have Human Rights? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This event lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since June. Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to lack of refs and no evidence of notability. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Breakthrough (human rights), no references available other than youtube and social media references and no evidence of notability, plus it's duplicated in the Breakthrough article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs some RS third-party reviews and assessment of its impact. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a one-time event would probably need at least some evidence of long-term impact, and I can't even find much RS for original event itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article was created by an SPA, who also created a few other articles that should probably be considered for merger (to Breakthrough) or deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no established ongoing or historical significance to this event. It was a forum held several years ago, and the article claims 600 people attended. There are lots of forums on issues attended by 600 or more people, and nothing in the article establishes why this one was notable in ways other, more ordinary ones are not. Circumspect (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Collier[edit]

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

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

These players all fail WP:RLN as they have not played in a first grade or international match. In addition many have copyvio concerns as they look like they have been copy/paste from the official website. Mattlore (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages due to the above concerns:[reply]

Sam Lousi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sebastine Ikahihifo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Omar Slaimankhel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Falaniko Leilua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malakai Houma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Siliva Havili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Siulongoua Fotofili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlos Tuimavave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sio Siua Taukeiaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ivan Penehe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ben Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Konrad Hurrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete All fail WP:RLN and the text has been pinched directly from the Warriors homepage.Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. All fail WP:RLN, which is already quite a wide notability guideline. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plantation Open[edit]

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

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

Should be deleted per tennis project ladies tournament guidelines. From 2008–2012 the ITF Women's $35,000–$100,000+ tournaments are the only ones considered notable. These do not meet notability in tennis project guidelines of a $35,000 tournament. Other pages of this low-level type tournament have already been deleted. see - other articles deleted Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

other related pages:

Open GDF SUEZ de l'Isère (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mildura Grand Tennis International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ace Sports Group Tennis Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Launceston Tennis International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ITF Women's Circuit Pingguo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open GDF SUEZ 42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - These were contested ProDs. Thanks to Fyunck for bundling them. These tournaments fail the guidelines used by project Tennis, where a recent discussion confirmed a concensus not to have under $35k tennis tournament articles, see: Woman ITF 25k tournaments. There are also no in depth coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to establish GNG for these tournaments. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tend to agree with the noms rationale. Pol430 talk to me 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Several more $25k tournaments in AfD have meanwhile resulted in nearly anonymous deletes, confirming a broad concensus not to have them : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 AEGON GB Pro-Series Foxhills, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Zubr Cup, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Trofeul Popeci, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Enka Cup, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis MakeSense64 (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per general concensus, doesn't indicate it meets WP:N or WP:NSPORT 98.64.181.170 (talk) 22:49, 9 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 Capistrano Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niguel Hills Middle School[edit]

Niguel Hills Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This school only teaches grades 6-8 and thus does not enjoy the assumption of notability accorded high schools in AFDs in recent years. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline, despite some run of the mill coverage in the LA Times, in its role as the local newspaper. Edison (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Capistrano Unified School District (the list of schools there should also be delinked). You can redirect all non-notable public schools in the U.S. to their parent school district articles; don't bother bringing them to AFD. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have had some similar AfDs recently where editors have variously !voted Keep, Delete, Merge, and Redirect, so I think it is understandable that nom brought it here. In fact -- we've even had the situation of a sysop questioning another sysop's close in similar AfDs, so this may be less clear an outcome than it might otherwise appear to be.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per usual. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete text and redirect. All the text in unreferenced and should be deleted rather than merged; a redirect of the name would be fine.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into school district.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:01, 7 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. Tone 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Hughes (footballer)[edit]

Matty Hughes (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has never played in a fully pro league and never played while at Celtic. Has only played in the Conference & therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Without a fully pro appearance or significant coverage, he clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played first team professional league football for Fleetwood Town (Fleetwood Town being a full-time professional football club)^[1] and therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. User:Veganfishcake (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In my nomination I acknowledge Hughes had played in the Conference. However Fleetwood are not in a fully professional league Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. if the league isn't classed as fully pro then i don't believe it matters whether the club is. I may be mistaken though. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  07:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Wars (app)[edit]

Cartoon Wars (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any significant third-party sources indicating notability. Contested prod with reasons of unlikely notability as well Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (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) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]