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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salwa al Mutairi[edit]

Salwa al Mutairi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Negative BLP that only cites one news occurrence, contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS Zzarch (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ostensibly about a person, it is really just about one controversial thing that they advocate. This isn't an article. North8000 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First off, Wow!. After reading some article about her, I was left speechless. Beyond that, she is known for some statements in June 2011. There are a ton of news articles in June about her. She is mentioned in blogs after June, but I couldn't find anything that was reliable and talked about her beyond her June statements. It is clearly a case of WP:BLP1E and somebody having their 15 minutes of fame. Bgwhite (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the news, and I am just not finding sources that discuss her in any context other than this comment. She's running for office but doesn't actually hold an office, and, it seems, never has. I'm open to the possibility that there are other sources in Arabic, which I can't read, but in English, I'm not seeing the sources that would confirm notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not a comment nor just a talk she is notable In Arab and the world for making weird suggestions that got media's attention even Fox channel talk about and bbc..am trying to expand the article next few days with support of sources.--Neogeolegend (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: A one-off news piece does not count as long-term enduring notability. If you wish to avoid the deletion process while constructing an article, you may do so by creating a userspace draft, but it is not in itself a rationale for keeping an article. Zzarch (talk) 08:46, 12 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  08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morphological computation (robotics)[edit]

Morphological computation (robotics) (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 main issues are listed in Talk:Morphological_computation_(robotics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakila (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion was not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Speedy close and invite Kakila (talk · contribs) to have another go at nominating it. --Northernhenge (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Fixed already Northernhenge (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I read the whole article carefully. Despite being technical sounding, it is a lot of vague hype and nothingness. It does nothing to either detail or explain the supposed topic. The references are very limited, the most prevalent author is the very person being promoted in the article. The newest reference is 5 years old. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 12 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?} 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Bhattacharjee[edit]

Moni Bhattacharjee (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 significant coverage in reliable sources. One of his films, Mujhe Jeene Do, is notable, he himself is not. Since the film article does not contain significant information on Bhattacharjee (none with reliable sources, that is), a redirect would not be helpful. Huon (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I do respect your comments regarding Moni Bhattacharjee however in bulk reviewing you didn't check it properly in Moni Bhattacharjee article has citations are satisfying the secondary sources policy in Wikipedia, look you are agreed on the point that his one movie is very notable and its logical thing that if his movies are notable so does he, its not only one movie he has more than 6 biggest movies as he is director of nineties and he was very well known and notable personality of his time as he was in nineties therefore its hard to find information on internet however I am working on it as soon as I find I will upload it therefore deleting of article is not a good solution therefore it ought to improve rather deleting. --Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CREATIVE in that his works have notability through commentary and review. For example, his work Mujhe Jeene Do has a quite in-depth review and commentary in The Hindu, and his works have analysis and comentary in multiple books. And beyond WP:CREATIVE, he meets WP:ANYBIO for his 1964 Palme d'Or nomination at Cannes Film Festival. We have enough available to show notability, even if it was 40+ years ago. Notability is not temporary and we do not expect ongoing modern coverage for a respected filmmaker whose last production was in 1968. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Notability sure isn't temporary, but it isn't inherited either. My understanding was that winning an award counted as "winning significant critical attention" per WP:CREATIVE while a nomination did not. But even if he scraped by WP:CREATIVE on that account, he still fails the general notability guideline, and I don't see how we have enough secondary sources about him to write anything beyond a stub. For example, I cannot even tell whether he's still alive or when he was born. Since we don't expect new coverage, this won't get better. Huon (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The the essence of WP:NTEMP is that Wikipedia accepts that a person who was notable in India 40 to 50 years before the internet does not need ongoing modern coverage. That prior notability is found in that he and his works are spoken of in a more-than-trivial manner in books (pinging the GNG) as the coverage is NOT trivial and his accomplishments have made it into the enduring historical record. Further, we cannot dismiss that in his easily meeting WP:CREATIVE (not just "scraping by") in that his works also have coverage exceeding the GNG. But what is also cogent is that the GNG is not the sole determinant of notability... just the easiest to argue. And please note the essay WP:INHERITED deals more with familial relationships and not creative endeavours. If I were to argue that WP:ANYBIO could be ignored because it encourages notability-by-association with an award, I would be laughed off the project. What we have here is a reasonable preumption, supported by archived coverage of his works in newspapers and of himself & works in books (even if all 50-year-old India newspapers are not available online), is verifiability that the made made his mark and received recognition for his creative efforts. It does not matter if the stub does not show if he is dead or simply retired. It does not mater that the stub does not share personal information about the man. THOSE facts are not the assertions of notability. And stubs are always welcome... even if they may never be more than a stub. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I seem to have missed that he was notable 40 years ago. Which books speak of him? The article does not mention any. Bhattacharjee does not fulfil the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO because for all I can tell he neither won any awards nor was he nominated multiple times. Whether his work is "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is at best debatable when all we have are two decades-old film reviews. If that were to count, any director of every film which was reviewed would become notable, which is absurd. Could you please elaborate what books write about him and how he satisfies WP:ANYBIO? If you know sources not currently mentioned in the article, please add them. Huon (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources were offered above and they need not BE in the article to show notability.... and as for Indian-language sources for a filmmaker whose works predated the internet by nearly half a century, I'll await input from editors more able than you or me to offer input on hardcopy sources for pre-internet Indian film notables. And even though we do have enough sources now, WP:NTEMP explains that sources do not have to remain forever available. Bhattacharjee and his works receiving more-than-trivial analysis and commentary even in existing media and books is enough evidence of a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" for me. And available sources aside, is it your opinion, that an Indian filmmaker being nominated for a Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival in 1964 would never have caught the attention of media in 1964 India? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am 50/50 on this one right now but have asked for input from the India Project. Indian cinema is huge and a lot of people involved in it are not notable even though the films to which they are connected may be. On the other hand, I have a gut feeling that there are unplumbed depths here, in part precisely because the subject area is so big and there is a tendency of modern contributors to this sphere of India-related articles to concentrate on the stars of today rather than of yesteryear. Add to that the very significant issue of systemic bias in this area, I think that we should at least keep things in proportion until some people with more chance of doing some sourcing actually do take a look. If that means extending the usual AfD period by an additional few days then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reason of Systemic Bias. A director with a classic success and a Cannes entry is notable enough in Indian cinema. He has had such a hit, people will want to read about him. If he had neither the hit nor the Cannes nomination, one would unhesitatingly hurry to delete the article. Western standards of notability should not be applied to delete articles on Indian topics which are just about notable. AshLin (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Director of at least three notable movies (Mujhe Jeene Do, Jaal, Baazi), and assistant director of one of the most memorable movies of Hindi Film Industry (Do Bigha Zameen). --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if needed, I'll find sources myself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is needed. This is exactly the problem: from the perspective of someone in Europe, I can't find sources for substantiate notability but (as I said above) I have a gut feeling that they exist and this is a systemic bias issue. Go do that thing ;) Sitush (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction (UK)[edit]

Extinction (UK) (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 and WP:MOVIE. Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there was a horror director called Luigi Cozzi who went by the name Lewis Coates, but this doesn't seem to be connected. 86.146.221.44 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may or may not be something by Italian Luigi Cozzi,[1] as he does direct low-budget horror films. Set in Ipswitch, the film appears to exist and can be watched online.[2] No matter who may have directed or not, it does not seem to have received any coverage or awards and so fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Miller (painter)[edit]

James Miller (painter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod tag was removed after adding a single link to an article in a local weekly news mag more about allegedly being censored than any alleged noteworthy achievements. To get an article in Wikipedia for an artist there needs to be more than local coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What was added isn't even an article but an interview. Fails WP:GNG. Huon (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, In Montreal, Quebec, and perhaps much of Canada, it would appear as though the most popular painting genre in terms of gallery sales/exhibition is mainstream decorative art. For the most part, abstract or landscape. Galleries that exhibit figurative works are few and far between, and in those, you'll most likely find more expressionist figurative works as opposed to, say, classic figurative realism. Gallery curators justifiably recognize that it's typically not a good business practice to exhibit works that antagonize or alienate their customer base. As such, they typically don't, and consequently, mainstream media doesn't go out of its way to promote controversial work that is not found for sale in mainstream galleries. After all, from a business perspective, what would be the upside? Many people are uncomfortable when confronted with criticism of their religion or collective behavior (politics). It turns them off. - Coming across contemporary realism expressing social commentary/criticism in the mainstream fine art world is rare. In Canada, perhaps even, non-existent. How many contemporary critical realists can you think of? The American painter Max Ginsburg is a good example but his works, however beautiful, are not overly controversial; certainly not to the extent that those who take offense to certain images or ideas would call (label) them offensive or disturbing. - Asking ourselves, does the article, James Miller (Painter), diminish the value of (or SPAM) Wikipedia? It's not clear to me that it does. - If one were to search for articles on contemporary social commentary/criticism in painting, might this article potentially be of any value? Would it be relevant? I believe it likely would be. - In that contentious, politically incorrect, not-for-profit artwork, regardless of workmanship, is not likely to be embraced or promoted by for-profit industry and media, how might we reasonably expect it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion? - Would the intent of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines truly be fulfilled by excluding this article? Not in my opinion.- Would Wikipedia, in excluding this article, effectively be brushing honest, perhaps insightful, social commentary under the rug, because ultimately, it's not profitable for the industry to promote or recognize it? Effectively, yes. - I believe that this article is an exception to the rule and should not be removed. Bokomaru (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hard to do a Google search, since the name's so common; but trying his name (both as "James" and as "Jamie") in combination with various keywords from the article and the Montreal Review piece didn't yield any evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. My searches turned up his website and the MR article often enough to persuade me that if there was such coverage, I'd have found it. Fails WP:GNG. The criteria at WP:ARTIST seem even stricter; the subject definitely doesn't seem to meet them. Ammodramus (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible Delete.Google isn't reliable for searches of newspaper/ art journal coverage pre late 1990's,that being said,if no other verifiable and reliable third party discussion of this artwork can be sourced,delete, Bokomaru's argument of political relevance although of interest isn't neutral=WP:NOT, if it is just unreliably sourced opinion. Euartcurator (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Miller began painting in 2004, so I don't think we're missing any pre-Google coverage re. his art. Ammodramus (talk) 16:17, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trays[edit]

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

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

Uncited material since Feb 2007. Borders on WP:OR. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 20:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like original research with no indication of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. "Trays" is the plural of "tray". Therefore, if the word "trays" has no distinctive meaning of its own to override the meaning "plural of tray", it should be redirected to Tray. There is no case for deletion. -- Oliver P. (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. No redirect is needed. Edison (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research or hoax. No reliable sources. Redirect to "tray" is unnecessary since it's a regular plural, and "trays" is not so commonly used that people would be inclined to search for the plural instead of the singular. Huon (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Drifting as the effect of traying is similar to drifting, and the term "drifting" is used seven times in Trays. Delete. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing to merge; the entire article is unsourced. Its only "reference" is our own Drifting article. Huon (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, and they also speak ambiguously by saying "many teenagers and young adults have tried to imitate the stunt." I changed my vote. If merged with Drifting, they would STILL have to verify and reference it. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk (band)[edit]

Hawk (band) (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--no record deal AFAIK, no hits, no fame, no fortune. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable, cannot find any sources at all. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Band is only known because of its association/lineage to more popular bands. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete. Per above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lumino Magazine[edit]

Lumino Magazine (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 significant coverage found for this online magazine. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find any third-party sources at all; not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable third sources Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:WEB.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliable sources were added to the article, thus the delete !votes over the lack of them in the article are refutted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haunt (video game)[edit]

Haunt (video game) (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 significant coverage found. This Xbox Live Arcade video game fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Plenty of coverage , including a preview video that has been on Xbox Live http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Haunt/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258410b34 Darwin-rover (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a video on Xbox Live for an Xbox Live video game show notability? SL93 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every video game needs a Wikipedia article. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep - a quick Wikiproject Video games reliable sources search shows coverage at Joystiq, GameSetWatch, IGN and 1UP among others. Clearly a matter of WP:BEFORE as there's been plenty of coverage on this game. --Teancum (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tired of people pointing me and others to WP:BEFORE when I or they do search for sources. I did say that so it does make me mad. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different Wikiprojects have their own search links that help you find sources easier. You can also try searching for the name of the company along with the name of the product, to help sort through the results and find if anyone mentioned this specifically. Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced, no detail, no expressed claim of notability. WP:BEFORE works both ways. It's also incumbent on article creators to create something that at least resembles an encyclopedia article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to be included in the article to prove it is notable. Do you have a problem with the references found by Teancum? Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with them is that he hasn't added any. A vague handwave "Oh there will be references" and name-checking a few web sites that cover the broad topic of gaming is not providing a reference for this topic, that demonstrates significant coverage of it.

In particular, the only detail provided so far "it will be available in late 2011" is clearly both a fail of WP:CRYSTAL when it was added and is now simply obsolete. If this assumption turned out to be correct, then there should be reviews aplenty by now. There are none referenced here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V now that sources have been identified, it is not required to add them in terms of evaluating for notability (assuming there's agreement the sources are helping to assert notability). Yes, they should be added in time but doesn't need it this moment.

Also, while yes, the game was planned to be released in 2011, and that hasn't happened, that doesn't mean there's a failing of CRYSTAL. The sources found point to a late 2011 release, but no source has seem to update that, so that's the best measure of when the game's release is. Since it is announced in that manner by reliable sources, it does not fail the CRYSTAL. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have still not been added. Naming a few games magazines is not the same thing as adding a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Teancum has found reliable sources giving significant coverage of this game, such as this one [3]. Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article should show notability. Without sources that it really exists, I should even consider is as promo or a hoax. BTW: for a strange reason a Google News search never ever finds anything. I have not a clue why. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, articles should show notability, and before this AFD, there wasn't any. Sources have been IDd now, [4], but as per WP:V/WP:N, don't have to be included to show notability. (They should be included at some point, yes.). --MASEM (t) 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There you point on one of the biggest blunders of Wikipedia. If an article should be properly sourced to proof notability, it is a bit strange that sometimes it is good enough to just know that sources exist. But is editor P says that a source exists, how can editor Q verifies its content or even existence? It is a conflict that should be dealt with soon. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blunder though it may be, it is what we do (per WP:N and WP:DEL). If the lack of sources in the article offends so much, please feel free to fix. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though a game with some but very limited coverage like this one by known developers will ultimately get an article, the limited information suggests merging to a developer's article as a pending work -- however, with the split developer aspect, this is not practical. Thus the article as a stub should remain. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic has been shown to meet WP:N. No real objection to a merge if a good target can be found. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources have been added. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been added.

There is one edit to this article since the AfD. It added a formatted infobox and it also changed the evidently incorrect claim that the game was released last year into a WP:CRYSTAL claim that it would be released in January. There is still no sourcing for anything in this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - expanded the article with seven references from reliable sources to demonstrate notability. While it'll be difficult to get it past a start class, it still passes WP:N. --Teancum (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There is sufficient coverage out there in the sources shown above, which can be easily added in. --MuZemike 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the now-added sources.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Enough sources have been provided to establish notability. Game-Guru999 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Knuckles[edit]

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

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

Is this really notable? If it is, it at least needs a major rewrite perhaps from a child dev. perspective. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - As strange as this game seems, there are two sources which seem to establish some level of notability.
• Weak keep - as per above. There are reliable sources quoted enough to establish the notability of the game. It might not rise any further but there is enough for it to stay. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Penny[edit]

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

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

Never played or managed at a fully-pro level, so fails WP:FOOTYN, no evidence of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 7. Snotbot  t • c »  18:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No professional appearances, so fails WP:FOOTYN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who? WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete - many players on wiki have just non league careers, but do not have the professional coaching level like penny, and the article doesnt claim he did play pro football. he has coached at a fully professional level and developed many of the youth players in league football today. Published author of football books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.86.230 (talk • contribs) — 82.33.86.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KEEP (Proven professional record - has coached at fully pro level, article does not claim to be pro player) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.86.230 (talk • contribs) — 82.33.86.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• delete - as stated above, this article fails WP:GNG, and since Penny has not played or managed in a fully pro league, fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1983 Grand Prix (tennis). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrara Open[edit]

Ferrara 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)

Non-notable tennis competition which only ran once. I cannot find any sources at all, never mind anything that could establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability. So, ONE tournament with no real notable tennis players for a tennis circuit that doesn't even mention Ferrara??? — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

But If it's only ran once create the year and redirect Ferrera Open to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.193.152 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage about this tournament at all that would establish notability. All we have at this point is verification of existence. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 1983 Grand Prix (tennis). On second thought, the circuit is notable, and the material is verifiable and could serve to flesh out the rather sparse 1983 article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge on that rationale. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yendri[edit]

Yendri (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 person (musician). Does not meet any of the WP:BAND criteria (for composers nor musicians). I did some extensive Googling for third-party references and found one album review by a non-notable online "publication". The only other items were typical artist-related profile sites, and a few archived forum posts asking whether she was a man or not. bllix (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 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) 20:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 17:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only WP:BAND criteria that the subject even comes within a mile of is "releasing two or more albums on an important indie label". While a couple of the other bands on Mental Ulcer Forges do have their own articles so are presumably notable (though that might need to be looked at...), it doesn't seem anything like enough for them to be considered a respected indie label. Given that the subject is German I suppose it is possible that there are some German language sources that aren't coming up in Google searches but absent any new info I can't see any reason to not delete it Robinr22 (talk) 18:06, 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. Jujutacular ^talk 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ReUse Connection[edit]

ReUse Connection (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. All the links are either blogs, don't mention or imply them by name, or are unreliable in some other way. While perhaps well meaning, it is bordering on advertising. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, the following references are "reliable":

a. Moorhouse, Ellen (2010). Trash Talk: Are those old videos just garbage?. yourhome.caYourhome.ca/ (A Toronto Star newspaper blog). Ellen Moorhouse was Editor in various departments of the Toronto Star, from October 1983 to December 2004 (21 years 3 months). During this time her various responsibilities, included: assistant business editor responsible for the Sunday business section; editorial board editor responsible for op-ed and editorial pages in the Saturday and Sunday Star, and real estate editor in charge of two weekly real estate sections. She has been writing the “Trash Talk” column for the Toronto Star’s ‘yourhome.ca’ blog since approximately April 2009 (oldest Trash Talk article I found: http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/622811--trash-talk-don-t-chuck-it-use-it). According to Jennifer Wilson, Editor of the Toronto Star, "Ellen Moorhouse is a professional journalist. . . Yourhome.ca is not considered a blog, but a full-fledged site under the Toronto Star’s umbrella, and therefore fall under the same journalistic standards."

b. Wasson, Julia (2010). ReUse Connection – Ideas for Repurposing, Freely Shared. Blue Planet Green Living Julia Wasson has a distinguished career in marketing, publishing, writing, and editing. She and Blue Planet Green Living have already been cited as a refernce for a Wikipedia article. See reference #1 at: Harvard "Pete" Palmer, Jr. ("Donate Vehicle—Help Charity—Get Tax Deduction," www.blueplanetgreenliving.com, November 11, 2009, by Julia Wasson).

c. Tottleben, Cy (2010). The ReUse Connection: Keeping material out of the landfill. Mother Nature Network. Cy Tottleben, according to MNN.com (a blog that has its own Wikipedia page - Mother Nature Network), graduated from Indiana University with a BA in history. Cy has spent the past 20 years educating others on the three R’s — reusing, reducing and recycling, which has earned her the nickname of "The Crazy Recycling Lady." Her current project is affecting change in her business by greening her store and spreading these practices throughout the corporation. (See: http://www.mnn.com/users/ctottleben).

d. Grover, Sami (2010). [Reuse Community Takes Facebook By Storm - With More to Come]. TreeHugger. Treehugger is the number 1 environmental blog on the web and has a Wikipedia article (TreeHugger). Sami Grover has been a writer for TreeHugger since 2007. He has worked in academic publishing, specializing in issues related to sustainability. He has been published in Permaculture Magazine. Sami is the co-creative director at The Change Creation. (See: http://www.treehugger.com/author/sami-grover/). :Other publications by Sami Grover include: (2007). Rob Hopkins on Transition Culture, Positive News, and others listed on http://planetgreen.discovery.com/author/sami-grover/.

Ginalizardi (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 17:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I came to the same conclusions as the nominator. Essentially, this subject doesn't have in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Sources that I found include blogs (good for some information but shouldn't be the basis of notability), trivial coverage, and press releases, much in the way the article is currently sourced. The subject fails WP:ORG (WP:CORPDEPTH) and lacks WP:BASIC features of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 21:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The above call for deletion states that the article does not have: 1) in-depth coverage by 2) multiple reliable sources [that are] 3) independent of the subject. In addition, it states that the coverage is 4) trivial and [includes] 5) press releases.
  

1. The coverage is “in-depth” -- In every article cited, ReUse Connection is the main topic and the activities of the site are described.
2. The four sources cited above are very “reliable” (several have been used as sources for other Wikipedia articles) -- The articles cited were written for publications with journalistic integrity and by writers with a history of covering sustainability that are considered mavens in their fields.
3. All sources cited are independent -- They are all 3rd parties and chose to write articles for their publications and their readers. You can verify that by emailing them. I actually reached out to the editorial department at the Toronto Starto verify the journalistic integrity of the article.
4. The coverage is non-trivial -- I read the description under “depth of coverage” in notability guidelines and none of the sources cited are in the list of trivial sources. I have seen several approved references cited on Wikipedia where the entity is mentioned in passing (see Inhabitat), making it trivial. In ReUse Connection’s case, the articles were written about the website as journalism.
5. Not a single source cited was a press release -- I am not sure where this claim came from. In fact, in all of my research, I have not found one press release issued by ReUse Connection.

Ginalizardi (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)— Ginalizardi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comparing to other articles is not a rationale to keep. Actual, keeping isn't a matter of rationale, it is a matter of criteria. Having a long list of references is meaningless if they are blogs. The fact that other articles may use the same blogs as references doesn't mean they are ok, it means that no one has bothered to remove them from those articles yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Borderline speedy delete, CSD-G11 & A7. I recognise that the website is probably doing excellent work to promote recycling, but there is no evidence of notability here. References supplied are blogs and cannot be considered reliable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The yourhome.ca is actually the Toronto Star newspaper, so it is a reliable source under editorial control. However, the other sources are bit more dubious. In total, the coverage presented is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepComment - Whpq, thank you for finally recognizing that the Toronto Star is a reliable source. I have spent 13 days trying to explain this to your fellow editors! The article has been slightly modified and proper references have been included (articles printed in the actual/printed magazines Natural Life and Political Themata [in Greek]).
  
  

Natural Life has both printed and online versions of its magazine. Political Themata does not have an online presence but it featured a four-page article on ReUse Connection that originally sold on Greek newsstands and in Greek bookstores. The article was deemed reliable enough to be picked up and reprinted in a separate, online publication (independent of Political Themata), as referenced.

If these, combined with the Toronto article and the many blog articles (there are probably 20 more I did not list) are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's criteria, then I raise the white flag. . . Ginalizardi (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, despite a lot of pro-keep tl;dr on this page, I still don't see a single seriously reliable source to conffirm its notability. Max Semenik (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GUSIF[edit]

GUSIF (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 student club. No sources to indicate notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article about a university investment club that has a "references" section containing exactly zero references. Article states that the club has $370,000 in assets (nice for a student club) and 70 employees (absurd). Show me significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I will change my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Other than an article in the Georgetown student newspaper, some facebook/linkedin profiles and a few press releases I can't find anything about this at all. Therefore it doesn't seem notable to me, even if the parent university obviously is. Robinr22 (talk) 18:14, 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 Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Me (2005 film)[edit]

Talk to Me (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found nothing that shows notability for this film. The only source in the article is the official website. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Non-notable film. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements. The film is sourcable as having aired on Channel 4, [5][6] and I quickly found coverage in The Guardian, [7] and weaker ones in Paste Magazine, [8], NPR,[9] and a few others. Nice that years after its original screening, the film still receives some coverage as I did not expect continued coverage for this 2005 documentary short. Article now being improved through regular editing... so far turning the nominated stub into THIS. Is this the most notable documentary ever? Nope. Does it meet WP:NF through sourcable coverage and review? I think yes... just. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to withdraw if Lugnuts changes from delete to keep. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep following the excellent work done by Michael. Lugnuts (talk) 07:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tel-O-Fun[edit]

Tel-O-Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

notability? Steinhfer (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under WP:OTHERSTUFF of Category:Community bicycle programs. I think on a whole these ventures are worthy of articles in each separate city. Green, environment, community sharing, etc... --Shuki (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The convention seems to be that these kinds of articles are kept, plus the following sources exist: [10] & [11]. Combined, that seems enough to keep the article.
• Keep, perhaps speedy as the nom has given absolutely no rationale as to why this topic is not notable. The sources indicated by the unsigned ItsZippy solidifies this keep.--Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant media coverage. Marokwitz (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and close – AfD is not cleanup. The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator hasn't advanced a policy-based assertion why this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 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 Georgetown University#Media. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Television[edit]

Georgetown University Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Student run television channel that appears only on campus closed-circuit television and teh internets. No third party sources, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is similar to a campus newspaper in determining notability, or other media sources with limited distribution. So while sources might be an issue, the distribution isn't.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, because there are not sufficient independent sources to establish notability, are you in favor of deletion?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I've just had trouble with the argument against the notability of media outlets that by their definition has a limited circulation.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found no significant coverage. This is just an average non-notable student television station. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Georgetown University#Media where there is already info about the station. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Georgetown_University#Media per WP:Retain --Guerillero | My Talk 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Cloud[edit]

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

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

No reason why this software platform is notable is stated in article or could be found. Couldn't find significant independent coverage of this platform. Of the 3 references, it appears two relate to concepts peripheral to the subject and not the subject itself. The third is a press release from the organisation funding the product. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another software platform for the building of Cloud infrastructures within a Service Provider advertising on Wikipedia. Upper case is for proper names. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:03, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BreakingPoint Systems[edit]

BreakingPoint Systems (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 significant claim of notability. Also appears to be WP:ARTSPAM - page creator, User:Kyleflaherty, has a vested interest - see [12] Bazonka (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the article's references, there does seem to be plenty of independent coverage. Including mentions in mainstream news sources such as the Daily Mail (the second most read English language newspaper website in the world). Pit-yacker (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The claimed Daily Mail source does not appear to contain the string "BreakingPoint", and would appear to be about network security generally. The rest of the sources are press release based coverage of company-announced "breakthroughs", startup-related announcements, routine financing announcements, and petty trade awards from industry analysts. (Hint: if it says a leading network security provider and worldwide leader of unified threat management (UTM) solutions or the like, it's not an independent source.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:01, 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 Dickinson,_Texas#Education. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article isn't warranted for this school. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True Cross Catholic School (Dickinson, Texas)[edit]

True Cross Catholic School (Dickinson, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

K-8 schools have been deemed not worthy of inclusion by precedent. Relevant merge target is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Unless reliable sources discussing the school in detail are found, merge WhisperToMe (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Searching for "True Cross Catholic School" and "Dickinson" on Google News and Google Books... I could not find anything WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep I have a problem with mass nominations that unilaterally attempt to gut a topic. This is one of dozens of Catholic or parochial schools nominated for deletion by the same editor with no attempts made to find sources or improve evident.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^^^WhisperToMe's comments^^^; also common school outcomes. Note that another editor (User:Epeefleche) is also nominating similar articles for deletion, in greater numbers (he's in the dozens, I'm at about 8) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to parent No proof of notability by third party sources. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge to the governing body, if it is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, and this school does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, nor does it enjoy the assumption of notability afforded high schools. Any editor is welcome to find and add sources with significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. WP:ORG also calls for sources from outside the local area, a more strict requirement than WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:36, 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 ] 23:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to the Catholic District School Board, 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) 15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be snowing in Texas right now ... redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 12 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 - G12 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)[edit]

Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Long-established precedent says that elementary and middle schools are not worthy of inclusion. Relevant merge target is Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:COPYVIO problems. Here, the article was tagged as a copyvio. Looking at the revision history since then, we find that the text of the body hasn't changed significantly since then Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is a tricky one, as it includes both a church and primary school. Since the article title relates to the church, not the primary school, a lower notability bar is called for, in my view. The copyvio aspect, if verified, would be cause for immediate deletion of the article, of course. However, it appears that the original history from which this piece may (or may not) have been originally pulled is now down. It would take some Time Machine detective work to provide such a diff. My own inclination is to let this one stand and move along. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have a feeling the sourcing can be found on this church and that is likely has historical significance. As part of a mass nomination of related articles I don't think this nomination should be given much weight as its unlikely much research into each item was done to determine the likelihood or sources or notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the best way to participate in deletion discussions. Aside from the "I have a feeling that sources exist," please read WP:ADHOM and avoid voting on the basis of a nominator's actions. StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The precedent about the elementary/middle schools doesn't mean we automatically delete them if they pop up without looking into it. It just means that they aren't generally given the benefit of the doubt like high schools are. the e/m schools have to prove real notability. Also, like stated above, this article is more about the church than the school. If it is part of simply a mass deletion nomination, I also am a little leery of that. However, that said, I am having trouble finding third-party sources that prove notability (or any historical significance as mentioned above) for either subject. Only apparent possible claim to notability for the school is its Blue Ribbon status. Will keep looking, but I'm leaning closer to saying merge. Definitely think it needs rescue with third-party sources. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the COPYVIO concerns? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked into that, yet, since I was first trying to find 3P sources to improve the article. You're right. The history section still reads almost exactly like the church's website. Just very minor, token punctuation changes, etc. I would consider that section COPYVIO, maybe not whole article though. Taking that section out as copyvio would lend even more weight to merge/redirect -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources have been provided to satisfy WP:ORG. Several individual nominations of similar subjects are not what I think of as a "mass nomination," which would be one AFD directed at multiple articles. Churches certainly do not enjoy a presumption of notability like high schools, and most articles about individual congregations have been deleted in AFDs. Edison (talk) 21:40, 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 ] 23:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh. No claim of notability, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Primary school doesn't help provide much in the way of notability either. Blue Ribbon School title isn't very notable either as those aren't hard to come by. RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh 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) 15:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Google news search for "Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church" And "Raleigh" to make certain I got the right one, shows over 500 results. [13] Remove -funeral and -weddings from it, and that lowers it down to a few dozen. I don't see anything in those though other than saying people who died belonged to that church. Note that Wikipedia does NOT have precedents. Each case is different. Dream Focus 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G12 As some users have noted, Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)#History of church and school has been copied from the church's website with very minor changes. Most of the prose has been copied from the pages cited as refs. (The OLLS Sports site is down.) The article's creator Nctennishco12 was blocked for sockpuppetry, and the master Tarheelz123 was originally blocked for creating copyright violations. I have tagged the article CSD G12. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted as G12, copyvio speedy deletion. Kindly note that AFD is precedent; WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply here, because closed AFDs are the result of consensus, not simply the creation of a single editor like random Pokémons were before they were sent to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 05:55, 12 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. Nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted. (Non-Administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Wearen[edit]

Eoin Wearen (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 not made any professional appearances, so does not pass WP:FOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly has - is playing one as we speak - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16371385.stm - number 15.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I hadn't noticed the reference. As he is now playing his first professional game, he passes WP:FOOTBALL. I thus withdraw this nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:50, 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. Michig (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2Build 4Ward International Organization[edit]

2Build 4Ward International Organization (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 zero significant coverage for this organization. The only links in the article are unreliable - Blogspot, Facebook, and Twitter. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I looked and agree with nom, nothing to show notability. As a year-old, apparently all-volunteer charity, this lack of evidence is to be expected. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found two articles in the Sacremento Press: [14] and [15]. The first article is not independent as it written by a member of the organisation, and the second article is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 12 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  08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Human Geography Data (WWHGD) Working Group[edit]

World-Wide Human Geography Data (WWHGD) Working 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)

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

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

Unfortunately this project would appear to fail the General notability guideline. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional: If you would like to attend this meeting or learn more about the WWHGD Working Group, please go to the WWHGD website... and lacking coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Carlino[edit]

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

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

Barely known playwright and politician. Does not meet any notability criteria in my mind. bender235 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm coming into this with an open mind. There has been enormously heavy tagging on this one, including simultaneous speedy and AfD flags and a laundry list of style offenses. That the article is a mess is beyond doubt; however, it does appear to be to work of a new editor who is TRYING to footnote correctly about what they believe to be an encyclopedic topic, which get's my DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS blood flowing a little. Is this a single purpose COI account? Perhaps. We'll let that lie for now. As to the basic question here, that of notability: HERE is voters guide biographical info. It is essentially a textbook example of self-sourced information, but it still remains the sort of declaration "under scrutiny or oath," if you will, that should be of potential use in BLP footnoting should this close a keep. Still looking... Carrite (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As a losing candidate in a city council race, pretty clearly fails the special notability guidelines for a politician. Work as a comedian seems to have escaped significant published attention, and movie industry participation also seems to not rise to the level necessary for encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I got dizzy trying to decipher the References, but Carrite is correct. Even though the article's editing is horrid, there is nothing biographically notable about Mr. Carlino. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firstly, thank you to all those contributors who have helped clean up this submission for the John Carlino page. There are many stylistic problems with this submission but, as mentioned, it is a new submission by a newbie to Wikipedia, me. There are many persons on Wikipedia who, are or were, in the film and theatrical business. That John Carlino has well documented credits in film and theater both as an actor, writer, director and producer should satisfy any scrutiny. My hope is that monetary or popular achievement does not trump artistic achievement. I believe this submission is valid. John Carlino is an upstanding figure in Manhattan, NY film and theater and politics. The references do lean upon internet links yet many of the links referenced are actual publications. I believe as time goes on it will be much more common to have links to web based publications over brick and mortar (paper) publications. Thank you and hope all those who have contributed will consider keeping Mr. Carlino's page on Wikipedia. (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Nuance22 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no significant coverage about the subject that would satisfy Wikpededia's general inclusion criteria. As a politician, the relevant guideline for inclusion for that aspect of the subject's career would be WP:POLITICIAN. I do not see that any of the inclusion criteria from that guideline are met. His work in film and comedy would need to be evaluated against WP:ENTERTAINER as the most relevant guideline. Again, I don't see any of the criteria her being met either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 12 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 Redirect per WP:BOLD and per we don't need an AFD for that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Wahab Elmessiri[edit]

Abdel Wahab Elmessiri (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 moved the page to Abdel Wahab El-Messiri and this page is an accident edit after the move --AbderrahmanNajjar 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to Abdel Wahab El-Messiri. Pburka (talk) 16:13, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Textile Technology and Management[edit]

Institute of Textile Technology and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Gnews never heard of this organization. And the article itself has zero refs. This is the 2-year anniversary of it being tagged for deficiency in notability. Created by what appears to be an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: This is a notable institute and has a lot of coverage in print media. Has been listed on a regularly used Pakistani education related website [16], has online media coverage [17] [18] and most importantly, has print RS coverage [19] both in Urdu and English. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, trivial passing non-substantial coverage does not confer notability status; nor does non-RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 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) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The "sources" are either listings or promotional material. Notability can't be established by this kind of material. No RS in two years.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:02, 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,  Sandstein  11:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete partly on the assumption that the Keep-er above has offered the best sources he or she can. EEng (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided by TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those sources do you views as being RS sources, and of those which do you believe constitute substantial coverage of the institute? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of TopGun's sources establish notability. We have a directory listing, a blog, some sort of website where the sole content is an image that won't load, and a newspaper advert. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another RS [20] and then we have WP:NHS to consider. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq raised questions above as to whether what you cited previously as RSs were in fact RSs. What are your thoughts on that? Also, as to this reference, it appears to be a passing reference -- the institute is listed as one in a series of "affiliates". I'm not sure that adds to the requisite substantial coverage to pass GNG. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for missing that one of them was a blog. The advertisement pretty much verifies the existence of the institute which will get it quite some grounds for a 'keep' per WP:NHS and another site that is listed is one of the much referred sites for the education related information (atleast in Pakistan) and seems RS to me. The latest I added is surely a reliable newspaper(more than 70 years old) and does specifically mention the university but then again, general notability is pretty much covered in print media (which I do not have access to - so I should rather use 'highly likely' covered in print media). --lTopGunl (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to consider NHS, a non-binding and regularly disputed ((essay)). Specifically, you need to consider its third paragraph: "However, this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically. Unreferenced material can and should be challenged up to and including removal from the article. Efforts are much better put into locating reliable sources about the school and improving the article based on those sources."

Being a school for teenagers or adults does not exempt the school from the need to have sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Haven Shopping Centre[edit]

Lake Haven Shopping Centre (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 and WP:NPLACE. run of the mill shopping centre with no coverage to reveal any notability outside the local area. Simply being the third largest in the region is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable shopping centre with no assertion of notability. The only coverage it gets is for a child being trapped inside a vending machine there. [21] Till I Go Home (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only insignificant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 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 merge with Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. The concerns about the title are of interest, but given that it has been used I see no harm in leaving a redirect behind. Much of the content is already contained in the target article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation, Verbeterde List[edit]

Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation, Verbeterde List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It is not clear whether this name of variation really exists, or whether it is just a name used locally in the Nederlands. Sources given are scarce and not enough to decide the name of a chess opening. SyG (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For your information, it is already internationally used, and for example the New In Chess Yearbook and Chessvibes Openings already adapted this name. That you don't know the name, says more about your knowledge of chess opening theory. Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs)

As you mention below, New In Chess is a Dutch publication, and the author who used this name in ChessVibes is Dutch as well (besides, I would not consider ChessVibes as an authoritative source anyway). It would help if some, say, UK authors or russian authors (and I am not talking about russian-born authors who are living in Nederlands, of course) or US authors would use this name in publications. SyG (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The line 6... Nbd7 has been played since the 1950s, and also during the 60s, 70s (in conjunction with ... e5), 80s, and 90s. So why is the article seeming to imply the opening is under discussion/investigation as new?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the date of the Lody Kuling game? (The article seems to be saying the opening idea was initiated by that game.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to FIDE.com and ChessGames.com, Lody Kuling was born in 1990. ChessGames has some games from 2007. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would need a lot more convincing. The wording of the wiki article as it stands is plainly wrong. Looking at some random Petrosian games in the 50s and 60s (when both he and Polugaevsky played 6 ... Nbd7 a lot) I even found one where he used this flexible move order to play e5, rather than e6, so the idea is not new, exactly. The article writer on Chessvibes is unknown to me. Lennart Ootes ... not Dutch is he? ... and New In Chess ... well I know that's a Dutch publication. Is this what Twaburov means by "internationally used"? I would be much more keen to see how Ftacnik phrases it - does he speak in terms that confirm this 'international recognition' or not? Provide his quote and I will consider retracting. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (and redirect) into Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Bubba73 and WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please explain your reference to NNC ? What I am discussing is whether this chess variation should really be called the Verbeterde list, or not. Where would NNC exactly apply ? SyG (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is true that Nbd7 have been played in the past, but after Kleijn-Kuling (Groningen 2007), it gain a lot of popularity. The reason of this was that Lody Kuling found a very good way to meet 7.f4. When Bitalzadeh played it against Pruijssers in Wijk aan Zee in 2009, Ivanchuk was staring at the opening position for a couple of minutes, and then used The Verbeterde List himself a few months later. After Shirov-Dominguez, Wijk aan Zee 2010, black had also a good way to meet 7.Bc4, and because of that even more players started playing it. I don't know what it takes to be accepted as a name on Wikipedia, but in my opinion it is deserved to be given this name, as since Lody Kuling came up with this idea, 6..Nbd7 became hugely popular. About the references I will be honest: Ftacnik recommends 6..Nbd7 in his Najdorf book, but doesn't mention the name The Verbeterde List. The article writer of Chessvibes was Merijn van Delft, he is Dutch. He discusses my game against Lars Ootes. He uses the name The Verbeterde List. Also Ufuk Tuncer (he is Turkish) used this name in New in Chess Yearbook 101. Also I have some international friends who call this opening The Verbeterde List. Again, I don't know what it takes to be accepted as a name on Wikipedia. Maybe it helps when I write a book about it.

Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The name Verbeterde List is used in a caption in a Spanish text in this report in ChessBase News on a chess tournament played in Amsterdam: ... Lody Kulling, quien en 2008 jugó la variante Verbeterde List de la Najdorf por primerísima vez. I don't know whether ChessBase News counts as a reliable source. The author of this report, Lennart Ootes, is Dutch.  --Lambiam 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Twaburov has been honest enough to admit that Ftacnik did not use the term 'Verbeterde List' in his book. Without that, we are left with ChessVibes and ChessBase articles by Lennart Ootes, not as far as I am aware, a journalistic heavyweight, and as a fellow Dutchman, someone who may lack the necessary objectivity. It's not just the name issue either, but also a concern as to whether the line itself merits its own independent setting, particularly as it is as old as the hills. I don't doubt that improved plans may have been found, but it is not Wikipedia's place to speculate on the credibility or prominence of opening lines based on the development of improved plans. I would personally wait for a good, reliable source to appear outside of the Netherlands. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lambian, could you give me the right link? It is not really working.. Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've corrected it in my comment above.  --Lambiam 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation.  --Lambiam 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So there is New in Chess, there is Chessbase, there is Chessvibes, what else is necessary to be an established name? Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately all these are Dutch or Dutch-related sources. As long as only one country is giving an opening a certain name, it cannot really be taken as a definite fact. I would like to see top-players (and not Van Wely...) give this name to the opening, that would reinforce the credential. SyG (talk) 21:39, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eidos Institute[edit]

Eidos Institute (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 was deleted after an AFD in 2009. It was recently recreated but is substantially different to that version. Having read the sources in the article and looked for more myself, I do not think that the think tank has received sufficient significant secondary coverage for WP:GROUP to be met. The only coverage I can find is in news reports discussing what the institute has reported, rather than anything about the institute itself. While Julia Gillard evidently thinks that the think tank is important this is not the same as notable. Whatsmore, I can't find any evidence to suggest that the institute has had a significant impact on public policy in Australia, as might be expected if it had done so. SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete overly promotional and lacking significant reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:52, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication News[edit]

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

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

I found nothing that would make this defunct magazine pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 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, →Στc. 00:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The defunct news organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG per nom. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW; listed for three weeks without any improvement or defenders. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 12 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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 2 novelization[edit]

Spider-Man 2 novelization (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 is just a plot synopsis with zero secondary sources to establish notability. Unless someone provides them, it should be redirected to the film article. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 7. Snotbot  t • c »  10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the film article. Actually, instead of a synopsis to the plot, the article looks to point out the differences in the novel and the original sequel. Both, again, should be an addendum to the movie article. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There really isn't enough content to merge into the main article. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 11 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Customer[edit]

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

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

A meandering article that is at best an expanded dictionary definition, this is an essay with a notable(!) lack of references. It wanders way outside the topic of a customer per se. I have strong doubts that an article on the topic customer has any encyclopaedic value anyway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a dab page. There's (just barely) enough entries: Customer (song), Customer Smythe and Customers Bank. A wiktionary link will round it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert per Clarityfiend. I can't see how an article on this topic would hold encyclopedic importance. I was going to decide to redirect to wikt:customer, but the pages pointed out by Clarityfiend seem to justify a disambiguation. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per recent improvements, I would be fine with keeping it. I still think the creation of a dab page would be a good idea, though. Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an 8-year-old article with 300+ incoming article-space links on a topic of central importance to the capitalist business ethos and the subject of an endless number of academic and private marketing studies. The recent improvements by Uncle G, adding references to the article, demonstrate that this is a noteworthy topic with more than a sufficient supply of reliable sources to develop the article further.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note and welcome the improvements. They are good to see, but do nothing to assuage my doubts that this topic is, of itself, a dictionary definition. I also note the 8 year old comment. That something is old does not mean it is good, nor does it mean it is valid to include here. It simply means it has been around for a long time. That a thing is the topic of numerous studies does not make it inherently correct to retain here, since I argue that it is a dictionary definition. A Customer is one who purchases something. That's it, really. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Almost any article can be reduced to one sentence but that doesn't make it necessarily a dicdef. --Ifnord (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This discussion is due (overdue?) for closure around now, but all I can see comes down brodly to a no consensus outcome, something I always find to be a poor outcome. I'd like to suggest it be relisted in order to seek to generate a better consensus, or at least to try to avoid a no consensus outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth Education[edit]

Blyth Education (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 references to demonstrate notability and written like an advertisement Vrenator ^talk 09:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I didn't find the depth of coverage necessary to pass WP:CORP when doing the usual searches, but I see this company has been around since 1977, so there could well be sources that are not available online. I am erring on the side of deletion at the moment, but I could be persuaded if new sources come to light. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced spam, with no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant advertising. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poet Tree[edit]

Poet Tree (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. Non-notable magazine. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The magazine is published in Bangladesh; are you sure there are no Bangladeshi sources that we have missed? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the question is are you sure there is? SL93 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean that rudely. I mean that just because it is from a different country with a different language, it doesn't mean that this article should stay. If no one comes to this AfD with sources, then this can be deleted. If sources come later, it can be recreated like any other article. SL93 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: This is an obscure literary magazine with very little coverage in Bangladeshi media. Mostly, the coverage seems to be pushed forward by the magazine's editor. I didn't find any independent coverage of the magazine. If you want to verify, please search Google with the magazine's Bengali transliteration পোয়েট ট্রি . Note that the magazine's author has flooded a few blog sites with user name Poet Tree or poetry, so you should disregard such entries. --Ragib (talk) 18:43, 23 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) 01:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:14, 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 for Essam Yassin. Issam can be redirected there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issam Yasine[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:FOOTYN, hasn't played in a fully professional league. Cloudz679 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no proof in article that this does not fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:29, 1 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. Or redirect to Essam Yassin if deemed appropriate. Same player. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL & certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
• Redirect to Essam Yassin. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unless the Iraqi Premier League is a "fully professional league", this player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Scottdrink (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relister's comment: I am adding the article Essam Yassin to this nomination, which is about the same person with slightly different content. Discussion should focus on whether the reasons given for deletion also apply to this second article, or if not, under which name the one article we need about this person should be kept.  Sandstein  09:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Merge - Mr. Yasine is an Iraqi international, and therefore meets WP:NSPORT. However, two articles on one subject are clearly not necessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, no content on this page that isn't already on Essam Yassin. --Jimbo^[online] 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Essam Yassin - notability is conferred through his international cap. Issam Yasine should be a redirect. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to change my 'vote'. Since we have a source for an international appearance, one article can remain. The Essam article dates back to 2009, so suggest keeping that, and setting Issam as a redirect. Looks like a similar argument to Mattythewhite. Cloudz679 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - also changing my vote following the discloser of an international cap, keep Essam Yassin & Issam Yasine should be a redirect. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Where consensus dictates, editors wishing to merge content are encouraged to do so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frog genetic defects[edit]

Frog genetic defects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

more an essay than an encyclopaedia entry. Title refers to genetic defects but the body of the article discusses non genetic defects. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The article itself doesn't even indicate that genetic defects among frogs hold any significance whatsoever and focuses on defects with environmental causes. I quote:

Not any inherited defects. That's the exact opposite of genetic defects. However, there are many hits on Google Scholar for the phrase Frog "genetic defects", and although some only mention frogs in passing, several do indeed seem to refer to studies of genetic defects in frogs ([22], [23], [24]). The article does need to be rewritten from scratch, yes, but I think that some notability is established in the scholarly works. If later on in the discussion it is determined that the topic is not suitable for its own article, perhaps we could merge some good information into another page. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per improvements by User:Northamerica1000, I am willing to change my decision to Keep and rename, although I would not be opposed to a merge. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The subject is quite notable as pointed out above, but the current state of the article is completely unsalvageable. Pending a serious treatment of the topic, it should be deleted.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect/Rename. Even with Northamerica1000's improvements, it still needs a lot more work, a complete rewrite even with planned sections/subtopics. There are numerous unsourced and very likely misleading statements in the article. It needs to be globalized (first observed in Minnesota = dubious) and the things introduced in the lead discussed in the body of the article. The section on Prevention violates WP:NOTHOWTO, is unsourced, and honestly sounds like it was taken from a grade-schooler's lesson on environmental conservation in terms of the information it actually conveys (it's extremely vague). It should be removed. Our article on Ribeiroia ondatrae redlinks amphibian limb malformations which imho is the most accurate title it can have. "Frog" refers strictly to members of Ranidae and not to all amphibians as seems to be the case in the article text. Nevertheless, I am more in favor merging the salvageable parts into Decline in amphibian populations instead, with redirects to give it much better context.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As for the merge+redirect proposal to give the article more context, I think it's perfectly sensible and I certainly would not be opposed to it if it were to happen. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve – I've done significant work to the article, cleaned up grammar, spelling, etc. Environmentally-caused mutations may correspond to genetic defects in amphibian offspring, and the article is not really significantly off base at this time, per improvements. This article is now easily salvageable. Also, the sources provided above by User:Chris the Paleontologist can be used to expand the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Rename to Frog mutation and genetic defects, or something to this effect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge material to more comprehensive articles. What the article is mainly talking about is "birth defects" in frogs. (Of course they are not really "born," but hatch and then metamorphize.) The issue of decline of amphibian populations and the extinction of species is a tremendiously notable and important topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve The article is notable. The articles content is well referenced. It appears the title is inappropriate to the content given. Perhaps a boarder title might be used like "frog mutations". The article continues to need some improvement in its encyclopedic form/style.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:27, 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 keep, without prejudice to possible merger, if further discussion supports such course.--Kubigula (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord John FitzGerald[edit]

Lord John FitzGerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Person does not meet notability criteria. Being a member of the FitzGerald family does not make you notable. Tryde (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but merge into his brother's article (Maurice_FitzGerald,_9th_Duke_of_Leinster); he is his brother's heir, and rewriting this from scratch when he succeeds will be a waste of effort. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unless there is some particular problem (vandalism?) that suggests the article is difficult to maintain, I see no harm in it. Normally I would agree that younger sons of Dukes are not inherently notable, but in this case he is the heir presumptive. Additionally, there has been an interesting challenge to the line of descent of this Dukedom based on an alleged faked death in the past. As DNA evidence has emerged recently (2010) it seems that there is a significant chance that something interesting may happen here. To hobbyist readers in this area, this is precisely the sort of thing that they turn to Wikipedia for - detailed information about people who would be difficult to research on your own.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Harmless -- We may want the article one day if he does outlive his brother. However, I do not like the presence of a succession box. It may be appropriate for the heirs of monarchs, but not for peers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what has FitzGerald done to become notable in your opinion? He has served in the British Army - that doesn't make you notable. And would he be automatically notable if he succeeded in the dukedom - he would have no automatic seat in parliament. This would open up the floodgates - there are hundreds of heirs apparent and heirs presumptive that would then be considered notable. I suggest (as a compromise) that the material on FitzGerald is moved to the article on the dukedom. I also suggest that the material on the claim to the dukedom is moved to its own article. Tryde (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then withdraw this AfD nomination, and let's move the contents. Since the American claimant is already mentioned in his brother's article, we don't need to move it. I'm not sure that they are notable enough for an article; they don't seem to have made anywhere near the progress of Arthur Orton, say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram: An Iranian Rapper[edit]

Bahram: An Iranian Rapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find sufficient substantial RS coverage to warrant a wp article. Others are welcome to try. Article written by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, it seems unverifiable at the moment, but keep if that can be overcome.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, notability not stablished. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, not supported by reliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The topic is verifiable, here's a brief discussion of the film at KQED Arts, but after searching, not finding significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Trumfio[edit]

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

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

Disputed prod. Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for artists or, specifically, music bios. ClaretAsh 06:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. You could try a Google search. Trumfio is a notable musician who was in The Pulsars with his brother, and is also a renowned producer. As a musician, he has played in the undeniably notable The Pulsars (which is currently a redirect to this article and in which he did everything other than playing the drums),[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] with Sally Timms,[40] The Aluminum Group,[41] Pigface, Ashtray Boy,[42][43] and The Mekons.[44][45][46] As a producer he is well known,[47] including for his work with Wilco, Franklin Bruno, [48] Sally Timms,[49] Built to Spill,[50] Patrick Park,[51] Floraline,[52] Certain Distant Suns,[53] The Baldwin Brothers,[54][55] Number One Cup,[56] and many others.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have reverted the nominator's redirect of The Pulsars to this article as there were references there which were not merged, and there is clearly sufficient coverage to support an article on the band.--Michig (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, the references weren't merged because the article wasn't merged, merely redirected. As my edit summary stated, I believed there to be no substantial content not already at the other article. ClaretAsh 11:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And references demonstrating the subject's notability are not 'substantive content'?--Michig (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't know if they're "substantive" content. When I referred to substantial content, though, I was referring to the actual text of the article, not the refs supporting that text. As there didn't appear to be anything substantial being said that wasn't already covered at Dave Trumfio, and as the relevant material at the destination article had its own refs, merging the Pulsars refs seemed unnecessary. If you want to add them, though, then add them. But can we please end this little side discussion and get back to the topic of this AfD. ClaretAsh 00:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Yeesh. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ummm... per above. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I guess he meets the criteria.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 12 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?} 15:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dench[edit]

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

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

Disputed PROD. Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for artists. Most significant claim to significance seems to be coming 2nd place in a single category at the Sony World Photography Awards. ClaretAsh 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]