< 1 June	3 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. No confirmation, false reference in attempt to add it to Illumination Entertainment - no need to wait a week to zap this. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe's Closet: The Movie[edit]

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

I can't find any sources to verify that it exists, let alone that it passes WP:NFF: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." David¹²¹⁷ 23:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the animated films guideline, with no significant RS coverage to support it. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources (reliable or otherwise) found by me either. Also seems to be an Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) effort. (I had rather a lot of interaction with Alexcas11 and his works if you want to peruse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexcas11 and the idiosyncratic writing style, the subject, the assertion that it will be a 3D movie from a major studio all scream Alexcas11 FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block sure looks like another hoax film from the usual suspect. DarkAudit (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the earth per nom and common sense. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Over-zealous capital letters, actors we've never heard of and a little-known children's property? It's the usual kind of hoax film article. Nate • (chatter) 08:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominatoer does not really make a policy-based argument, and apart from one other editor all propose to keep the article. Sandstein 08:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Crecente[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page should be once again deleted for the previous reasons stated. Even after previous deletion, it has been noted by user DreadedWalrus that Mr. Crecente is very active in the editing of the Kotaku article and as such is likely self promoting himself and his interests once again. This page Brian Crecente should fall under non-notable and self promotion. Thank you. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.6.169 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above nomination was copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Crecente where the IP tried to reopen the old nomination instead of creating a new one Monty ₈₄₅ 22:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the comment to the 1st archived AFD page. Also please note the other user contributions made to the 2nd AFD nomination page, some of those user accounts were created simply for this article and even Mr. Crecentes brother was trying to promote their self interest. Also to make note; with Mr. Crecentes leaving of Kotaku in January, he has become less notable than in previous AFDs 173.246.6.169 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this article should be blocked in the future from being created; unless by vote. These AFD nominations are becoming redundant. 173.246.6.169 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In previous discussion regarding this article, the Google test argument was used, which is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. 75.53.212.159 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry. I was beginning to enjoy calling for harsh deletions with a bit of a snarky remark, but I followed the usual methodology of clicking every reference and checking them out. This guy appears in magazine articles, industry profiles, etc. He obviously has established some reputation. In particular if he helped establish Gawker's Kotaku, that is something. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case Wikipedia should, could, would have hundreds of thousands of articles relating to small time video game journalists and industry experts. This logic can be applied to other names in this industry (and likely many others) and many references could be found. Does this mean we should clutter this place with articles that are based essentially on nobodies? My reasoning is that it's similar to small time actors being stricken off of WP constantly, and I wouldn't call it harsh at all considering this article has been deleted twice in the past. And to Brian and Drew; this isn't Linkedin. 173.246.6.169 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation to keep was not based on my view of the importance of the individual. I do not think the encyclopedia would be any worse off if this and many other articles like it were purged. But the policy says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published^[1] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3] ; this guy seems to have several independent RS, including interviews and so forth. There's nothing saying someone must have won an award to be notable. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sufficient that a few sources exist. They must also be non-trivial. What's out there is trivial coverage, which doesn't count. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where and how is trivial defined? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to pile on this one comment, but TheSoundAndTheFury is correct, Wikipedia is not a blind collection, but things must be verifiable, not the top X most important people or the X number of articles. If Wikipedia has 30 million or 300 million articles I'd be fine. Biographies should be reliably sourced, neutral and not a collection of dirt. A chief editor of Kotaku is notable, and many other sources post independent articles on him, journalists are not typically as well sourced because they source other things, here we have a journalist who is the subject of journalism. Might as well slap down Nat.Geo's chief editor or Nature's or Nova while we are at it, right? I doubt it would be any different if it was for Newtype or Game Informer. Kotaku is not a blog website, and it pretty notable in gaming, verification and proper sources are all that is required, and even as a bio it meets the minimum. I found more then a dozen 'OK' mentions in other sources, but you know, even full articles on him can seem 'trivial'. The trivial mention is like a sentence in a biography about some tiny class play. A good example is at WP:GNG. Which the subject also meets. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It was properly deleted last TWO times and should not have been recreated. Sources are simply insufficient to establish notability. Basically, all we have to work with is a "top 20 list" that falls far, far short of the kinds of awards (e.g., a Nobel or a Pulitzer) that the guidelines contemplate as acceptable evidence. I've poked through the Google results including the books and scholar results and I just don't see anything I'd call persuasive. Also, though not relevant to the question of notability, I'm not surprised to learn the subject may have had a hand in writing this. This should go and never return. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Find no reason under WP:DEL-REASON and the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR not to have this article. Kotaku is notable and is referenced often, he was editor-in-chief of a notable website which is consistently highly ranked. Under #3 of WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Editor-in-chief is a major role. Kotaku falls under the scope of a work and it in often cited and commented about. I don't see this article as shameless self-promotion, while it may not be a great article it still merits inclusion. Msnicki, the lack of great sources in the article is not a reason for deletion, the requirement is verification and as a former chief editor it surely these would be acceptable mentions? [1] [2] [3] E3 coverage aside, he seems to be regarded as an important figure in gaming journalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A chief editor of Kotaku is notable? I'm not convinced that Kotaku is notable. It's just a blog site. Our article on it looks more like corporate spam than anything else; I doubt it would survive AfD. I certainly don't agree that this website is a "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Where are the books, movies and all the articles and reviews about Kotaku? They don't exist. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and don't contribute to notability. There's just no basis in the guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Notability (people), for notability. Msnicki (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the criteria you cited, ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." We have numerous industry sources that report he is notable and the website is notable itself. Who cares if its a blog format? He was chief editor, and is listed in several lists of most important/influential people in the industry. The fact he is in the top anything in a multi-billion dollar industry is important, especially since Kotaku has weight in the industry. Kotaku is notable, if you disagree then put up for AFD and see how it goes, but I assure you Brian Crecente deserves and article on here because he is recognized by the industry as a leading journalist. We can verify and see his work on many different sites and any change in his career is covered in detail. If they write entire articles on him, he is not a 'nobody'. We wouldn't have dozens of articles about a journalist and not just his work if he was non-notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple claims of notability plus detalied coverage from GamePro magazine which cites Brian Crecente as one of the 20 most influential people in the video game industry. It does not matter here if you WP:LIKEIT or not, this is still a subject to preserve. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at the article shows that this source and this source are each dedicated articles to the topic. 5280 and GamePro are established independent sources. Therefore, the topic passes WP:GNG, without a need to evaluate further sources. Regarding the argument in the nomination that this article is "self promotion", this I can't verify. The article was started in July 2009, and as per the talk page, "This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation." Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mantell UFO incident. to Mantell UFO incident. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 22:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mantell[edit]

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

A U.S. Air Force captain involved in a UFO incident. Article has been around awhile. Fails WP:SOLDIER and is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The event already has an article and anything about Mantell's involvement should be in that article. Bgwhite (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E nothing noteworth that is not already in Mantell UFO incident. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert back to redirect to Mantell UFO incident. That is what this article originally was, and which it should have been converted back to (per WP:BEFORE point C) instead of being taken to AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Bushranger. Anotherclown (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert back to redirect. In this case it is the incident that is notable, not the person that was involved in the incident. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert back to redirect Agreed with WP:1E. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per WP:Articles for deletion#After nominating: notifying interested projects and editors, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect :There is no case to delete the redirect, redirects are cheap; and no one has argued that there is a cause to delete the edit history, so deletion is not a consideration.

WP:SOLDIER states, "...an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." I had no trouble finding a reference in a book, and verifying the existing sources, all of which post-date 2001. The argument that this topic fails WP:SOLDIER is not confirmed. Even a source already in the article mentioned that this incident made headlines across the country. The UFO article identifies this incident as a major shift in public opinion regarding the possibility of flying saucers.

My underlying !vote leans to keep, following the guideline in WP:BIO1E (AKA WP:ONESOURCE and WP:1E) that parses the differences between the case to keep and the case to merge. I think the continuing attention given to the person 64 years after the incident by the historian of the Kentucky National Guard and the people of Simpson County, expressed as a roadside sign in Simpson County, means that Mantell is getting attention directly without specifically caring why he was the first death in the Kentucky Air National Guard, or why so much media attention had been given to him in 1948 and in connection to the UFO incident. However, I think that this is close call that would need more analysis, and in theory it shouldn't make a lot of difference to the encyclopedia whether the WP:V reliable material is kept at Thomas Mantell or kept at Mantell UFO incident. I'm also not seeing a need to further develop the biography.

So, I have added the relevant material from this article to the Mantell UFO incident article and support a redirect to Mantell UFO incident. Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per BR and others. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW/WP:CRYSTAL (does that makes this a SNOWFLAKE?) joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem's Eighth Studio Album[edit]

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

Obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL Delete Secret ^account 22:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS. We don't know much about this album yet. A case of WP:NotJustYet. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed above, it has to at least have a name and some concrete details in my eyes. Best done after more information comes out, preferably a track list, description, release date and all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Absolutely no guarantee this will be released, and if so, when. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Love (Sherbet song)[edit]

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

Article fails general notability. — Statυs (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete - WP:NSONGS tells us to ditch songs that cannot extend beyond a stub. It also tells us that Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. In this case, the article says the song charted at #1 for 2 weeks, however the lack of significant coverage that can be found to even verify that it really charted far outweighs the NSONGS guideline. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sherbet (band) — although I removed the prod — I did find that there is hardly any coverage for the single. WP:SONGS says that song articles that are stubs should be merged to the artist page, though there is hardly any information to merge, so a simple redirect appears appropriate. Keep per expansions. Till I Go Home ^talk ^edits 01:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite astounded that this is even nominated. First #1 single from an iconic band is a snow keep to me. The common title and pre-internet time period makes online searching futile, but WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I'll contact some of the editors with access to good Australian music books for assistance. The-Pope (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also felt that the song is notable — due to being #1, which is why I removed the prod in the first place. I will continue checking the article, and if sources are added, I will change my vote to keep. THanks. Till I Go Home ^talk ^edits 02:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No. 1 on Kent Music Report weekly singles chart, No. 4 on its End of Year chart, and won Most Popular Australian Single at the annual King of Pop Awards. The article is now Start class and I've chucked in some refs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Article has been expanded a huge amount; notability has now been established. — Statυs (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectMapper .NET[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no indication of notability for this software; spam wording 'state of the art' and created by an SPA = likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. Non notable software. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Accüsed. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns for the Deranged[edit]

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

Not a notable album from this band. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails requirements of WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Accüsed. Studio albums by notable artists are of encyclopedic interest, and at worst should be merged/redirected to the artist article. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - Agreed. Not enough to merit its own article in terms of content. If it fills up with information then I could possibly see restoring it to its own article.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Jackson#HIStory, second marriage and fatherhood (1995–99) and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Katherine Jackson[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON I think. Only notability so far is due to being Michael Jackson's daughter. The film role may lead to notability in the future, but not at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against recreating if the movie gets made. For now, tho, too soon, as the movie could get cancelled. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then restore and protect the redirect. WP is not a celebrity gossip-mag to follow 14-year-olds about. IMDb shows this film only as in development - if/when it appears and gets reviews, that may be independent notability enough for an article. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, this may be different in the future, but there is no inherent notability for being Michael Jackson's only daughter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is quite weird to make a page about somebody who hasn't done anything with his career yet and is famous for being someone's famous relative only.
- Comment This is such a perfect example of Too Soon that I have explicitly cited this discussion at Wikipedia:Too soon. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When she was on Ellen or interviewed elsewhere, was it only about her father Michael Jackson? Dream Focus 02:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is now a continuing stream of activity of interviews with her, including one by Oprah. Wikipedia:Too soon is relevant, but when is soon enough for inevitable? She has an agent now, so once she's signed to an acting job... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1336920/ 66.186.163.112 (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Redirect as suggested by JohnCD is OK, after history is deleted.) At this point she is notable only for two things: having a very famous father, and making moving comments at her father's funeral. One type of notability is forbidden by WP:INHERIT and the other by WP:BLP1E. At this point I regard her as a private citizen and a very young teenager, whose privacy should not be invaded like this. (Do we really need to announce to a world full of kooks what school she goes to? Do we really need to post a photocopy of her birth certificate for heavens sake?) --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hayes (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-Notable person who fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG yes he is one of American Express' executive drones and served on Yahoo! board but there is no other significant coverage. I hope we are not going to simply include someone because of their brief stint on a corporate board with no real other notability. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy call when there are absolutely no reliable independent sources to establish notability. Google turns up a big nothing. Completely fails WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was going to counter this simply because he is a low-profile individual who does not jump into the spotlight in a big way, but I should clarify this. He IS notable for his position and for being an important part of a major internet company, however the ability to verify key information about the individual leaves the article in a precarious place. If there was more information besides these brief mentions, the article would be a different case. As there is not enough coverage I will have to go with delete under concerns of the relevant policies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search turns up no significant coverage. Even the claims at the article do not amount to notability. Served on the board of directors of a notable company; fairly high level executive (but not one of the highest) at another. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G4 and salted. Peridon (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Richero (singer)[edit]

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

Contested prod (tag removed without explanation by anonymous editor). This article was deleted so many times under the title Marian Richero that the page is now protected against creation. The same is true on the Italian Wikipedia. Quite simply, this fails WP:BIO. The only serious claim of notability (a deal with Arista Records) appears to be pure fiction as is his discography. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MARIAN RICHERO. Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've actually tried to get this nomination speedy deleted since it's unnecessary but the anonymous editor is also trying to interfere with that. Go figure... Pichpich (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krunal Gandhi[edit]

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

This article is another unverifiable article.This article was created by User:Luckylikke who had previously created such article Jitendra Joshi.See it's AFD for more information.The article's references can't be verified anywhere.Also, The publication house and the writer shown in the references can't be verified.The village mentioned in the article named Vasant-Vihar is also can't be traced over internet.Thus, This article should be deleted t avoid misinformation. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 19:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a place called Vasant Vihar in the city of Navsari in Surat District, and its possible that it was once an independent village. However, irrespective of the village's existance or non-existance, Krunal Gandhi is not notable. Barring some unusual degree of publicity, the leaders of villages are not notable. WP:AFDP#Politicians states the following: Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). NJ Wine (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think Indian villages had any rulers, and even if this Vasant Vihar had, this article fails our notability guidelines. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Reynolds (football coach)[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant American football coach. Fails the WP:GNG and the specific WP:CFBASST requirements, never been a head coach, no awards etc . (Note: there is a high school coach of the same name [4] who was the USA Today High School Coach of the Year) Tassedethe (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet our notability standards through WP:GNG, WP:CFBASST, or any other measure I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject coach is a non-notable former college football player and a non-notable assistant coach. Subject does not satisfy the notability requirements of WP:NCOLLATH—subject is not a member of the CFB Hall of Fame and never received a major national award. He never played a down in a regular season professional game, and is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. Subject's notability must stand or fall under the general requirements of WP:GNG. Google media and Google News Archive searches reveal dozens of hits (and many more for an unrelated American sports writer, and other persons of similar name), but none that provide any meaningful coverage by sources that are independent of the subject person, his former teams or former leagues. Such non-independent sources cannot be used to establish notability. While I agree with Paul McDonald's "delete" conclusion immediately above, I note for the record that WP:CFBASST is part of an essay that expresses the opinions of several CFB editors; the essay represents neither official Wikipedia-wide policy nor the policy/majority opinion of WikiProject College football ("WP:CFB"). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes that is an essay, one written largely by yours truly with input from the community. It is not a binding policy. I should have clarified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear notable under any applicable guideline (or essay). cmadler (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Jaykumar[edit]

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

Notability. No third-party neutral references found. Both references are wikipedia mirrors Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notability is not asserted. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5), creation by a sock puppet of 10alatham (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 18:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sheridan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays in a fully pro league, which is not true, and that he will move up soon, which is speculation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This does not preclude including information about this, if verifiable, in another related article. Sandstein 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content quilting[edit]

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

"Content quilting" appears to be a new patent-pending technology. I can find no substantial references that include the term, indicating that it is not notable. At present, this seems to be a neologism. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no independent sources, and I could not find any independent sources for content quilting. This article does not meet Wikipedia's Internet notability guidelines. NJ Wine (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If the problem with the page is the use of the term "Content Quilting" itself, I propose changing it to "In-page inspection and filtering", or something to the likes of this. Bottom line is that the Content Filtering page is incomplete without a reference to technologies that inspect and filter content within the webpage rather than only at the URL level, and this is what I was attempting to address. Content Quilting, while patent-pending, is a methodology that has been in the web filtering market for nearly 5 years, is an approach that can similarly be seen utilized to varying degrees by other companies such as lightspeed and bloxx, both of which, if I remember correctly also inspect within the page, and is a valid addition to the Content Filtering article. It is from this perspective that the Content Quilting page was opened. While term itself is not sourceable beyond Netspark.com, that simply indicates that the company has not run a PR blitz to generate numerous articles, etc. on the Quilting name itself, however the Content Filtering page is incomplete without a reference to such technologies. {Sminchom (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - I found zero hits online about this concept, searching both Google News and Bing. I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I just can't find any relevant sources to show that it's notable. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TipTopJob.com[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Google News is full of press releases and Google Books has trivial mentions. Non-notable website per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's purely written for advertisement.Also, the website is not notable.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 20:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Foundation of Virginia[edit]

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

Notability is not established. It contains no WP:RSs The Determinator p t c 15:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced, promo p b p 04:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local charity. No obvious target for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WJChess[edit]

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

There is no indication why this chess program would be notable for an encyclopedy. Also, the page has been created by the author of the program, whose it is the only contribution of Wikipedia, which raises concerns that it may be an article created for commercial purposes. SyG (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article tells what the program can do, but with no evidence of any independent coverage, there is nothing to confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing but primary sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources on Gnews, just one-sentence name-drops. The awards are not sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much as I like the comic and wish it were notable, I haven't been able to find anything. The only possibly reliable reference I could find was http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/10/web-comic-spotlight-looking-for-group/ ... which while a blog posting, at least is a CNN blog. But, that's just one reference, hardly enough. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Good call, TPH. Doesn't meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. ChromaNebula (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be the same basis as last time. The Shuster Award, given by a group independant from LFG, is sufficient for notability. Footnote 69 is a link from the Shuster Awards, not LFG. The criteria for notability still includes a single award, see Wikipedia:Notability (web), and note that criteria is listed in the disjunctive. Finally, a subject never loses notability. IMHO (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Looking_for_Group. As far as I'm aware this is a well known and widely read web comic. If you do a Google search for 'looking for group', you will see plenty of evidence of fan created sites, which is evidence of fans, i.e. notability. This article may need improving, but it's existence improves Wikipedia (Wikipedia:IAR) Garemoko (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 03:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) →TSU ^tp* 03:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher International Pty Ltd[edit]

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

notability. possible peacocking and conflict of interest. RichardMills65 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is certainly Keep. If some of the article's claims can be substantiated with references, it surely establishes notability. The Frost and Sullivan reports look like very reliable sources, but I believe the text is only available by subscription. Business Victoria does place their establishment in 1986, but I can't confirm whether or not that makes them one of the "oldest" fiber optic test companies. I might however suggest renaming the article to simply "Kingfisher International" to better follow naming guidelines. Noir (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent coverage about the company exists, see [5], [6] The Age, both the articles contain sufficient information to prove notability (The Age/D&B Business Award (1999) Governor of Victoria export award (2002), "... a leader in fibre optic test equipment with customers in 70 countries" etc.), [7] (State Government Victoria) Of course, the content of our article needs to be carefully edited, verified, protected against spamming etc ... but I disagree with deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: with Vejvančický there is notability, but article needs work. -- Dewritech (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad article but they are notable. More coverage: Heaney, Claire (6 April 2006), "World beckons fibre optic pioneers", Herald Sun - Keeping, Steven (1 November 2005), "Kingfisher wins photonics award", Electronic News - Meredith, Helen (29 February 1996), "Kingfisher wins photonics award", The Australian Financial Review. note that Frost & Sullivan are not an independent reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Should the subject become clearly notable, the article can be restored. Sandstein 08:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India Programme XII on Diabetes Research[edit]

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

Article on a research program which was announced only a few weeks ago and hasn't even been formulated yet; the sole source claims only that the government "plans to invite proposals". Programmes I through XI don't seem to be notable (as evidenced by, for example, a lack of any relevant Google hits), and there's no indication that this one will be either. See also WP:FUTURE. Psychonaut (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nominator that the program isn't notable yet, if it ever will be. There is one Reliable Source, from the Times of India, announcing the launch of this initiative; otherwise nothing. I can't think of a good redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is not notable yet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I place my bet with the author Vivek Rai on this one. Recreating it in a month is just annoying. wp:future? why not nominate the Chinese space station or if it's proposals you'd like there is a never ending list of proposed u.s. space stations which were nothing but paper. Other government departments are talking about it's funding and so forth, it's a goer. Penyulap ☏ 13:55, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that it's going to happen. The question is whether it will become notable, i.e., receive significant coverage from independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governments that don't produce copious amounts of hot air ? when has that EVER happened ? This article is inevitable. Penyulap ☏ 20:43, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if government reports are going to be considered as independent reliable sources for this purpose. We would be looking more for media reporting, like the one article we do have from the Times of India. (If a government tree falls in the forest, and the media don't write about it, it never happened for Wikipedia purposes.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well luckily we have sources to choose from, a little bit of tabliod, a little bit of hotair.gov, and more talk will sweep through the plague of fat people across the world, (talking is easier than dieting, so it's a sure thing, they either complain the government is not doing enough about the plague of fatness, or the government issues scientifically proven studies full of facts too boring to read in countless volumes, promptly ignored, as all good advice is.) There is Zero chance of Diabetes going away, India is developing in such a way as the problem will only increase. Penyulap ☏ 02:54, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep Program has not started yet and the government is going to spend only 25 crores [8] for diabetes it doesn,t establishes article notability. Moreover its research program that might take years into action and results will be??? Dr meetsingh Talk 08:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "weak keep" but your argument seems to be for "delete". Could you clarify, please? --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Program is a proposal to tackle diabetes in future by govt and who knows this program might become notable in coming years with its good research this point may favour in "keep" to this article Dr meetsingh Talk 14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep and weak keep !votes are all making arguments based upon potential future notability. But wikipedia does not create articles based upon WP:FUTURE. We would need reliable sources now for an article to be kept. Unfortunately my searches do not turn up any reliable source coverage other than the single article in Times of India [9] which talks about the government planning to invite proposals in the future. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. P.S. Not that the Chinese space station article has anything to do with this one, but Penyulap, please note that even though that article talks about the future it is well sources in reliable sources - which is a huge difference and justifies an article based upon WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is WP:notenoughindianeditors because of wp:bias. To find the context I went to the department of science website, which is all in English, and followed through the other gov websites, also all in English with a wealth of information. I find that it is staggering that India has the largest number of diabetics in the world, and I'm not sure if wikipedia even covers the subject of what the government is doing about it. One thing I surely know is, if we can't find and make welcome people willing to write on Indian subjects, wikipedia will always remain biased. Diabetes in India, well, if that is not notable subject I don't know what is, where is wikipedias coverage of this ?

Looking carefully at the news article, I see the ministry made an announcement, but who was the spokesperson and where did that happen ? It is not possible that the announcement was made in secret, and the official must have a name, something tells me there more to be found on this subject, if only there were editors willing to look. Meh, what do I care. Penyulap ☏ 10:20, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I agree that diabetes in India may well be a notable topic. Instead of trying to cover the subject backhandedly, via an article about a proposed government program, should there be an article about Diabetes in India? No, I see that other countries do not have such articles. But I just added an India section to Diabetes mellitus#Epidemiology. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an understated way to refer to the topic I must say. What we are looking at here is a serious systemic problem where deletion discussion is badly designed and carried out. I find that excellent editors are approached poorly rather than successfully which is so easy to do. What should be done here is simply to move it to the empty larger notable topic, A cartoon comes to mind here of a policeman with a gun who looks at the toilet he just used and then fumbles for his firearm, before realising with some embarrassment he should use the flush button. He is so accustomed to using a gun he just doesn't look for proper solutions anymore. This kind of discussion with promising new editors gives me cause to reflect on the failings of wikipedia.

The new section looks good.

It would be nice if there was someone willing to write on this topic, any ideas where we can find such an editor ? anyone ? hmm ? Rather than this typical throw out the baby with the bathwater AfD and BITE combination, it would have been, and still is, a better idea to properly and politely approach the editor and assist in improving the article, and then after you have demonstrated that you are here to assist, suggest improving the profile of the article with a better title and broader coverage, as it is, and as it is project wide, more time, effort and text will be spend on discussing deletion of article and valuable editor rather than pushing the topic over the line. Penyulap ☏ 14:17, 9 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Academy of Dramatic Arts[edit]

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

Article has been recreated after speedy. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 12:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the article is even weaker than the one that I speedied, which at least delved into a spammy promotional spiel about the school's program. While it's certainly possible that notability might exist here if the article were properly written and referenced, this version certainly doesn't demonstrate it. I'm willing to withdraw this if the article gets significantly improved by close, but in its current form it's a definite delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to establish notability, and I'm not finding anything sufficiently independent of the organisation. Possible A7 speedy as there is no assertion of notability, but it look like previous versions have been through that stage, so maybe better to establish a lasting position at AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a notable school in that area, unlike, say, the William Davis Centre for Actors Study. I don't see any evidence of this school's notability. I found no evidence of reliable sources about this one-year diploma school. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and doesn't meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as it is not a degree granting institution, just a commercial acting school. For the same reason I would not leave a redirect to the locality, as we do with non-notable lower schools. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Harmon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can find no evidence that Harmon has ever won a significant award. There is the slightest of arguments to be made that he "has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre … such as beginning a trend in pornography", in that his work in creating "custom gay fetish video" is unique, but I can't think of how to do the research to demonstrate that he is indeed a pioneer and I'm not sure if this meets that aspect of WP:PORNBIO. He was reasonably well-known in his field in the 80s but this seems not to have translated into lasting notability. Ubelowme (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not supported by any reliable sources and contains no legitimate assertions of notability. The previous AFD was disrupted by editors engaging in WP:POINTY defiance of BLP policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sales NG[edit]

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

Besides questionable notability, article is written like an advertisement rather than simple encyclopedic entry, and author's name appears to indicate an obvious WP:COI DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was unable to find any indication of notability, much less reliable sources. Reads like an ad. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I prodded the article and all the article creator did after removing the PROD was to make the article read like an advertisement. Utterly non-notable software, falis WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, no coverage in reliable third-party sources. →B music ian 00:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G7. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solve the enigma[edit]

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

Rambling article that is supposedly about an album but is more of a bio about a non-notable artist. Speedy has been removed at least twice by the creator, and once more by an anon who has only edited this article. No evidence of notability for either the music or the artist. Dmol (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) let me finish...... atlest, i m starting from the beginning. i have released 4 albums online.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirazbsbs (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www.solvetheenigma.hpage.com www.facebook.com/solvetheenigma www.youtube.com/silverboy3in22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirazbsbs (talk • contribs) 09:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have strggled here to come y r u doing dis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirazbsbs (talk • contribs) 09:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Begging for mercy--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability, no real (non-self published/social networking) sources. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Speedy Delete Shirazbsbs the deletion discussions normally stay till 7 days, so you will have time to prove the notability of this article. I have posted my comments on the Talk:Solve the enigma to help you

~~:(Note to closing admins The creator is a new user, kindly allow seven days for him to get acquainted with the guidelines)~~ --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as the author had blanked the article and sadly got blocked for blanking AFD, And article pages. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. GregJackP Boomer! 12:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly a notable TV character. @nominator: Please, familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE. Thanks. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Meldrew[edit]

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

fails to establish notability. Many unsourced statements in the "Character" section and has no "reception" or "production" section. Koopatrev (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fictional character is very well known in the United Kingdom, and he is often referred to in the media. The page should be improved rather than deleted. CodeTheorist (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. I was startled and saddened to see this misplaced nomination. Had I been a Victor Meldrew I should have mouthed a prolonged string of vituperative expletives... but since I'm just an English Wikipedian I have quickly added the start of a Reception section, and will observe that Meldrew is extremely well known and loved in the English media, to the extent that his name is part of our language, even a cliche for leader writers. The references I have provided are the tip of an iceberg; other Wikipedians will easily be able to add many better ones. But Meldrew's notability cannot be in doubt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep for egregious failure of WP:BEFORE on the nominator's part. The notability argument is trivial to refute and the others have no weight.
To prove notability, you need two reliable sources: the BBC here, The Telegraph here, and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the Daily Mail coverage as well. As for the other arguments, we don't delete material for unsourced statements, and we don't delete material for lack of sections. These are reasons why you should improve the article, not reasons to bring it to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sorry about that. I probably didn't read that before nominating...

I don't believe it! Lugnuts (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the sense of "not delete"; whether it should be merged is a question that can be discussed further and resolved through editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Druker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, this article read like a News report instead of an article, and also the content it proposes is not notable enough to handle a standalone article. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant scholarly commentary on the decision. Seems to be a an important tax case as its cited in many decisions post-Druker. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into marriage penalty. I was able to find a number of sources[10][11] discussing or citing the decision, but unless the stub is going to be substantially expanded, we should merge this page into the marriage penalty article, which was the topic of this court case.
I am fine with either keeping or merging the article, but leaving a redirect. This is a notable case for tax law, but a fuller article may be difficult to create right away. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Canis Majoris[edit]

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

Non notable enough star to held an article for itself. Not much information found to support a standalone article. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable star. Disclaimer: I tagged this article for notability some time ago as part of the New Page Patrol. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I refer you to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects). It explicitly states:
- "1. The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. For ordinary stars, this includes any object with an HR catalogue identifier." Ergo, it meets the notability guidelines and should be kept.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment French and Italian wikipedias have the star. It has a Bayer designation, and also appeared in Ptolemy's catalogues. I don't see why if it's on French and Italian wikipedias why it shouldn't have an English article. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each language Wikipedia sets up its own requirements for content inclusion. That French and Italian Wikipedias include this star is irrelevant. What is relevant is if it meets the notability requirements of the English Wikipedia, and of that I make no comment. LadyofShalott 00:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The sentences you quote are conditional on the sentence If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources. Which this is not true in this case. I also suggest that repeating the same arguement on my talk page is unnecessary. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Notability guidelines require multiple attestations in reliable secondary sources. For Messier objects, we look at the New General Catalogue. For stars, it's the Bright Star Catalogue. Just making the cut off is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- HR designation supported by this entry from SIMBAD & Centre de données astronomiques de Strasbourg, an independent reliable source. Dru of Id (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified WikiProject Astronomy of this AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Appears to meet notability requirements based on the above provided references. JoelWhy? talk 21:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Naked-eye visible means it satisfies WP:NASTRO. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/(was dubious): Why is HR 2593 located at 06 56 06.646 -14 02 36.35 while HD 51241 is located at 06 57 17.493 +19 29 55.52 (in Gemini)? Something looks wrong. Update: The wrong name was used. The correct name is HD 51251 -- Kheider (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator confused HD 51241 with HD 51251, considering the original state of the article, it's not surprising there are such errors. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for catching the typo!Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't Mu Canis Majoris (HD 56847 @ 07 18 09.638 -15 37 41.98) a different star than HD 51250 (06 56 06.646 -14 02 36.35)? -- Kheider (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seems to be... MU CMa (HD 56847)... which is listed as "V* MU CMa", variable star MU CMa, so "MU" is the variable star designation (double latin-letter). So it would be MU Canis Majoris, part of cluster NGC 2360 -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the five pillars, Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia. It's also an almanac and, particularly relevant to this discussion, Wikipedia's a gazetteer. Although this content wouldn't strictly speaking belong in an encyclopaedia, it belongs on Wikipedia because of our gazetteer function.
The way this translates into notability terns, I've always understood, is that stars are like geographical locations for the purposes of notability. What this means is that you can use maps as reliable sources (provided the map has a reputation for reliability—so if a location appears on an Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 map, for example, it would automatically be notable). Specifically for astronomical objects, star charts count, and it's usually trivial to find objects from the Bright Star Catalogue on a star chart.
Generally, this bit of the five pillars that defines Wikipedia as a gazetteer and almanac makes it extremely difficult to delete material that's about a real (non-fictional) place, date or time.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At apparent magnitude 5, Mu Canis Majoris (18 CMa) is a naked eye star and thus passes Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). -- Kheider (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. I was trying to help the nominator understand why our notability criteria for astronomical objects work in this way.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I was a little unaware of the guidelines for astronomical objects. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NASTRO does not say that star charts can be used as reliable sources. It says that if an object is listed in a major catalog of interest to amateur astronomers, then it is probably notable. NASTRO was specifically written so that the "geographic location"-argument is not applicable to astronomical objects. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This recalls our conversation on Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects) about six months ago when you wanted to promote your essay to a guideline. There is no reason to prevent star charts being used as reliable sources for notability purposes.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a naked eye object, this star is clearly notable, per the relevant notability guideline. AstroCog (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep because it satisfied WP:NASTRO. But I don't hold much hope of this article expanding significantly. The statement about it being a "quadruple star system" is suspect. Eggleton and Tokovinin (2008) list it as a binary star; SIMBAD lists it as a double star. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It apparent notability is reasonably clear from the article as it now stands, but this was one of a swathe of stubs created with really minimal infomation. Since pretty much all the information appears to come from SIMBAD and that information looks machine readable, could future stub creation be done in a way that includes a reasonable amount of information about the object? Two sentences explaining the object in terms a 10-year-old will understand would also go a great way to supporting the educational purposes of wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting idea. It should be possible, in theory. A potential problem is that not all SIMBAD lookups are successful with the naming convention used on Wikipedia. But perhaps it could be limited to lookups based on the HD number or other standard catalogues. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be based on the HR number (Bright Star Catalogue) to keep it to the naked eye stars. But do you want a bot creating 9,500 naked eye star articles? Just as with main-belt asteroids, it is best if a human decides what is a notable naked eye star or at least limit any potential bot to stars brighter than vmag 4. -- Kheider (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they're created right, I see no problem with a bot creating 9,500 naked eye star articles. By right I mean (a) natural language text paragraphs explaining the implications of some of these numbers (this can be templated relatively simply) (b) properly formatted infobox and references (c) all the observation data and numbers formatted as their respective communities expect to see them formatted (I'll defer to the communities on what that might be) and (d) structured so that the information can be harvested by others, i.e. DBpedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, If there's specific information regarding a particular star that you would like added, request it on the talk page. I'm working on filling the holes right now in an area where English Wikipedia has poor coverage that is actually superceded by some of the other wikipedias. It's much easier to expand a stub, once the stubs are in place. I'm always happy to improve the articles - but I can't read minds. If there's something you'd like to see, request it! Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Raptor[edit]

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

Non-notable software Q ^{T C} 06:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only 'source' is a self-link, otherwise does not meet notability standards. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable 3rd party references (blog and twitter do not meet criteria), no indication of notability for this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 05:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Malpaís (group)[edit]

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

This is an orphan, abandoned unreferenced article with no assertion of notability Has been tagged as unreferenced and as lacking notability for over 3 years. Illia Connell (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are track listings of this groups albums:

Illia Connell (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but substantially cleanup. They band appears to be one of the most well-known bands in Costa Rica per this reference that I found. Also, there is a Malpaís (banda) article on Spanish Wikipedia that I had Google translate, and it gave a lot more info on the band. More independent sources need to be added to this article, and I don't think that each album should have its own Wikipedia page. Un Día Lejano, En Vivo (Malpaís album), Historias de Nadie, and Uno (Malpaís album) should be merged into the main article. NJ Wine (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I could find is the citation mentioned above and that is only a story about one of the band members dying. J04n(talk page) 10:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some helpful searches:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ Per Phil Bridger's links, copious in-depth international coverage stretching back nearly a decade is evident in Google News as well as one good hit each in Google Books and Google Scholar, easily satisfying notability requirements for this topic. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 02:20, 26 May 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, →B music ian 05:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a possible independent coverage follow this link. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Sydney Rabbitohs. That seems to be agreeable to most partIcipants. Sandstein 08:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Piggins Medal[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. No independent sources. Purely a club honour. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject to possible merger to the team article. Multiple sources are found at GNews[12]. But unless there's substantially more to say about this than just a list of the honorees, I'd think it would be better included as content in the main team article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally merging to the team article would be sensible, as it's not a very notable award (despite one article about it[13]). However, South Sydney Rabbitohs is already rather long, so we may want to break some of that article out into a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No other NRL teams appear to have a separate article for their player of the year awards. Such lists are usually part of a club's 'Records' or 'Honours' articles.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:19, 2 June 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, →B music ian 05:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. relevent to the team. Wether it deserves a stand alone article is seperate. It belongs somewhere, wether in South Sydney Rabbitohs or elsewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to main article, the length of the original article should not be a factor in determining if it gets split out. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 08:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't do both, if you are merging the history needs to be kept as attribution. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicide crisis lines[edit]

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

Clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Even if the contact information were removed, it still wouldn't make a good stand-alone list, as the vast majority of the entries aren't individually notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the blatant WP:NOTDIR violation. I couldn't find a Google search term that would put this list on the first page and the information is available in plenty of other places but there's still the possibility that somebody will find it and it will save their life. I don't think that making an exception here would open the floodgates to a mass of other directories. Dricherby (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing or providing material in hopes of preventing suicide is not within the scope of our project, which is to create an encyclopedia. This runs afoul of WP:PROMOTION, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NPOV, and other policies. This issue was already discussed on (among other places) Talk:Suicide and Talk:Suicide methods. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how it runs afoul of any of those policies.

WP:PROMOTION: clearly not an "opinion piece", "scandal-mongering" or "self-promotion". I don't see any "advocacy, propaganda or recruitment" because it's just a list of organizations, or "advertising" because the content is entirely objective and does not offer any opinions, and all the organizations listed are individually notable.

WP:CRYSTALBALL: not relevant because the article makes no predictions about the future.

WP:NPOV: I don't see how this is relevant, because the article does not express any point of view — it's just a list of organizations. Of course, those organizations have a particular point of view but that will be true of any coherent list of organizations.

Indeed, I would be more sympathetic to the argument that deleting this article would violate WP:NPOV as it would leave the encyclopaedia with a lengthy article on ways to commit suicide (suicide methods) and nothing on ways to not commit suicide. (Suicide prevention is an article about how to stop other people committing suicide.) Dricherby (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory and providing a telephone book service is not within the scope of our mission. I appreciate the sentiment made above for an IAR Keep and quickly ran a Google search for SUICIDE+HELP+LINE, which returned plenty of good telephone numbers for someone in need. The odds of them seeking this information by typing "List of suicide crisis lines" in a Wikipedia search seem very, very small. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that people are unlikely to find List of suicide crisis lines from direct Googling. However, Suicide and Suicide methods are the top two hits on a Google search for "suicide" and I do think there's a case for keeping this list so it can be linked from the top of those two pages. Dricherby (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article, whether or not it is deleted, is certainly not going to be linked from the top of Suicide and Suicide methods; as I already mentioned that proposal has been repeatedly raised and defeated on Talk:Suicide. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Psychonaut and Carrite's comments. ---_TheFortyFive 17:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this page is currently being disccussed at Talk:Suicide_methods as a place to direct people from Suicide_methods. I suggest that it it is used for this purpose it needs to be moved to WP:List of suicide crisis lines. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a 'list' of every conceivable exercise in asinine stupidity under the sun on Wikipedia; a list of people who had gerbils stuck up their ass in 1929, a list of people who shit their pants in 1982 etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is a list, it just happens to be one that may actually be useful and help save somebody's life. God for fucking bid. (lengthy and irrelevant personal attacks against multiple people removed. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)) 7mike5000 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom; listing telephone numbers for non-notable entities, no matter how well-intentioned, is textbook WP:NOTDIR. This is not a task we should take upon ourselves, as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is a poor venue for listing any kind of emergency services with the expectation that people rely upon it and use it. I really don't think this is Wikipedia's place at all, but at most Stuartyeates' suggestion should be followed. Note also that we already have Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, to which WP:SUICIDE redirects. A directory of this sort is simply not an encyclopedia article. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, its current state is still unacceptable, but you've convinced me that its problems are probably fixable. postdlf (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they mostly are notable. I've Wikilinked the ones that have articles; I've not looked for notability in the others yet. Dricherby (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these links are duplicates, as various regional branches of the same organization are listed. Perhaps the list could be kept if the common list selection criteria were applied (i.e., entries only for those organizations with a dedicated Wikipedia article) and the directory-ish contact information and decorative flags removed. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question, how do you countenance the fact that there is a List of Ultima characters which is a nice pretty page and all but is a list of fictional characters that do not exist in reality, but that is deemed notable. A list of suicide crisis lines list organizations that exist in reality, and are staffed by real people as opposed to ficticious characters. As far as notability I am sure each one of those listings has been mentioned in various publications. As to whether or not I know the meaning of notability, yeah I do. Not to toot my own horn, but I can use my own definition of Silent stroke, in my words, in an article and use the medical journals that plagiarized it from Wikipedia as references. Unless you can say the same please don't preach to me about 'notability'. To satisfy the OMG a WP:NOTDIR violation, the telephone numbers can be deleted. As far as the flags that's a trivial issue but what policy does that violate? Is there a No little flags policy?

I'm sure for each one of those entries a reference can be found in a 'notable publication'. Don't selectively enforce policy according to your own whims. If a list of real world organizations is not 'notable', then all these lists on Wikipedia of the characters in kiddie games most certainly are not.7mike5000 (talk)

Keep on the basis of the added links that show notability Just as good as any other list of notable things. No need to invoke IAR for saying its useful--just the basic criteria for making a list of things notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 31 May 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, →B music ian 05:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Although I will say there is a strong case for WP:NOTDIR violation, maybe we could work towards merging it with this (or redirecting from there). I figure (as others have said), if things like a list of random Dragon Ball Z characters or a list of all the Digimon characters exist and pass muster--I would certainly keep this, albeit with a bit of work. Each of those individual institutions would easily pass notability checks and good reason exists to have a compiled list, though I would recommend it be semi-protected(at least) off the bat due to the serious consequences of misinformation. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mike told me about this. It's a list of mostly notable agencies, of a class - suicide crisis lines. Of course there should be such a list. If you've got a problem with the phone numbers, have that discussion on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:IAR if necessary, and improve as needed. Ma^t_chups 19:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of notable items - no need to invoke WP:IAR. The suicide line with which I'm most familar, the Samaritans, is beyond notable, being known by pretty well the whole population of Britain, and it has been demonstrated that other such lines are also notable. Whether to include the telephone numbers is an editing decision that can be decided by discussion on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it certainly appears that most of the entries are notable entities. That makes this a useful navigational aid, aside from the possible help it might give someone needing one of those places. LadyofShalott 01:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all the entries are notable and sourceable; the list is sensible and not random; our core readership (students) are both most likely to need this list and most likely to attempt suicide; we should IAR once in a while; specific editing issues are not for AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are this:

There is a list of everything on Wikipedia, many of them are lists of things that exist in the land of make-belive such as a List of Ultima characters, and a List of The Demonata characters which provides such useful information as; "Grubitsch 'Grubbs' Grady was a typical 14 year old teenager until his parents and sister were killed by a demon master, Lord Loss." There are also many articles that are ludicrous to say the least such as Fart lighting. As much as I enjoy lighting my farts fire, I don't think there should be an article on it., and 'articles' like that don't do much for Wikipedia's credibility.
These are real world organizations of varying reknown, I am an American yet I am familiar with the Samaritans organization.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to learn, and that can be done even from a 'list', e.g., I did not know that there were crisis lines that cater to specific demographic groups with unique issues such as LBGT youth, Native American youth and Aboriginal Canadian youth. Now I do, I learned that from a Wikipedia article.
For an organization that is based on advocacy - providing free knowledge - articles of this nature, even in short list formats with those damned little flags, fits the bill perfectly. It advocates for people - often young ones - in crisis who may die by pointing them to someone who will listen and may be able to offer some measure of relief. It does this merely by providing information. Knowledge is useless if your dead.
While there is know way to verify it, the Wikipedia article on Suicide may be among the last if not the least article a suicidal person reads before they kill themselves. The Suicide article had 123,983 visits in the last 30 days[14]. It's not far fetched to state that a certain number of those visitors are dead, but maybe a few were given pause for thought, that they haven't exhausted all their options yet by information listed their such as their are treatments that actually do work and there is someone to talk to.
While there may be no 'hard evidence' that crisis lines work, there is empirical data which shows that interaction with another human being, even a stranger via telephone, causes actual changes in a persons neurochemistry, even if just short-term. The human brain doesn't mature until about the age of 24-25, and in some people such as myself it never does. Emotional immaturity can lead to a rash decision culminating in suicide. Talking to somebody can help them get over what, may in the future when they are older, be something that is tolerable. Um, I'm done. Oh, wait how about 'fixing it' or improving it, instead of bitching about it. That's how you 'Help Wikipedia' and thereby society, not by feeling self-important by slapping tags on things. 7mike5000 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Samaritans also operate local crisis line in the United States, I didn't know that and it could be an alternative to 800-273-TALK. Somebody COULD ADD THAT information.7mike5000 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the article and fixing it will require removing the phone numbers, which would appear to make it useless for your purposes. If you are trying to prevent suicides, I suggest that moving it to Wikipedia: space will allow the phone numbers to be kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's kept, I don't see why we can't WP:IAR and keep the 'phone numbers, too. Dricherby (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because IAR only applies when there's not another way to do something and when the something we're doing is clearly supported by the other pillars, and here there are clear alternative that follows the rules and I don't see any attempt to use the pillars supporting this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no offense at all Stuartyeates, to each his own, but could you possibly explain to me how the winner of 'Mr. Gay World' Andreas Derleth, an article that you started, is somehow considered 'NOTABLE', whereas this one is NOT? Quite frankly, and again no offense I would say most people on the planet couldn't care less about who started Mr. Gay World.

You've been here long enough to know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. If you have a problem with the notability of some other article, then go and improve its references, add a ((notability)) tag to it, or nominate it for deletion. This page is for discussing the nominated article. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. LadyofShalott 02:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not attempting to support this by the pillars: I'm attempting to support it by basic humanity. Are you honestly saying that adhering to Wikipedia's rules is a higher priority in your life than to giving somebody a chance to save their life? It is perfectly acceptable for a Wikipedia article about a company or organization to link to the subject's website — there's even a space for it in the infobox. Is the phone number really so different from a policy point of view? And is including it in the list really so different from the policy point of view? It's a small stretch of the rules, with negligible physical cost (what, a few tens of bytes per replica?) that doesn't seem to set a precedent for anything else and that has large potential benefits. Dricherby (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the job of pushing your morals on other people. Suicide is an emotive subject in the Western world, but suicide is not always bad. Lawrence Oates, for example, is primarily notable for his celebrated suicide. Would you pursuade other people in similar sitautions that they should not lay down their lives that their friends might live? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oates is an exceptional case and at no point have I argued that suicide is always bad. Furthermore, listing crisis line phone numbers does not compel anyone to call them and calling them does not compel anyone to not commit suicide. Anybody who decides not to commit suicide after calling one of those numbers is free to change their mind again at any time. Not listing phone numbers may deprive people of the opportunity to seek guidance (remember: Wikipedia is the top two Google hits for "suicide") and people so deprived don't get to change their mind later: they're gone and their friends and family suffer. Finally, if arguing one opinion is "pushing one's morals" then arguing the contrary opinion must be the same thing. Dricherby (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like your morals, Dricherby. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing suicide crisis lines is providing information for people. List of suicide methods does not tell someone to put one of those methods to use. Neither does a list of suicide crisis lines tell that person to call that line. In both cases though, having the article means someone seeking the information can find it. LadyofShalott 02:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible to compare the unique situation and actions of Lawrence Oates, an explorer from the nineteenth century who was stranded in a tent in the Arctic, and who committed an act of self-sacrifice with some some college kid who possibly has an undiagnosed condition causing suicidal ideation who is contemplating hanging themselves in their dorm room? That is incomprehensible to me.7mike5000 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the telephone numbers, so a List of suicide crisis lines is not a DIRECTORY. (God forbid). There is no rational basis, to delete this now. The article, a List of Ultima characters uses 'references' that are explanations of the Wikipedia editor, which is tantamount to me making a contribution to a medical article and using as a reference; ref> "Trust me, I know this" </ref. Which is of course a violation of WP:REFERENCES As to the winner of Mr. Gay World, Andreas Derleth, winning an obscure contest does not constitute 'NOTABILITY', ...AND using a Twitter feed as a reference is of course also a violation of WP:REFERENCES. If an individual has difficulty following basic Wikipedia policy how can they possibly be in a position to be nominating articles for deletion? 13:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Luxton DD, June JD, Fairall JM. Social media and suicide: a public health perspective: "There is increasing evidence that the Internet (you mean like Wikipedia?) and social media can influence suicide-related behavior" Am J Public Health. 2012 May;102 Suppl 2:S195-200. Epub 2012 Mar PMID 22401525 7mike5000 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most or all of the entities on this list are notable. Keeping the list does no harm, and might even do some good. Maratrean (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove non-notable entries and ensure that the phone numbers aren't added back, as per recent edits. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Composite lumber. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capped composite decking[edit]

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

Unremarkable and based on only one source, without covering from realiable sources. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Composite lumber, to consolidate the two topics onto one page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Roshan220195 (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of sources to help verify the subject Deckinginformer (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 May 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, →B music ian 05:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Composite lumber. This should have been considered WP:BEFORE. --Kvng (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Norton Royal British Legion Youth Marching Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band, and the article is super promotional. A merge or redirect to the town doesn't make sense to me D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, there is no evidence that this organisation has such local significance that it should be merged to the article on the town. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 29 May 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, →B music ian 05:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but the band doesn't meet our notability requirements. Their alleged success in the TYMBA National Champions has not been noticed by any independent any reliable media in the region. But I wish the young musicians all the best, many future successes, and a lot of fun with music :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, the band has no coverage in reliable sources that I can find. A merge to Kings Norton as proposed on that article's talk page, doesn't really make any sense as Donde says, because the content is not notable enough to fit within that article. Quasi human | Talk 22:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Demographics of Kuwait. The consensus here is on the border of keep, versus redirection, however those who opine for redirection note the articles lack of substance and citations, and coverage in the main article, thus the reason I have closed this as redirect. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwaiti Arab[edit]

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

This article is a mess and completely unsourced Ilikecod (talk) 05:12, 19 May 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 May 19. Snotbot t • c » 05:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've fixed the formatting but am not taking a position on the article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if yew want a ip view

just saying that that this is the only article about a denonym in Wikipedia 84.255.184.152 (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The people of Kuwait are obviously notable and we have other articles about them such as demographics of Kuwait and Kuwaiti Arabic. Per our editing policy, we should use ordinary editing to improve our coverage of this topic. Warden (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Then why don't we have articles about denonyms of other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikecod (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article, this is an A1 speedy candidate. If someone takes it and re-writes the article, going beyond five words to at least a paragraph and adding sources, then keep. Otherwise, delete, it is a shame to have such an article permanently on board.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator removed all the unsourced content during this AfD, but that left no meaningful content in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve ‣ Obviously notable and just as valid as Ulster Scots, Kurds in Turkey, or Han Chinese. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 23:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention that this article is talking about the denonym "Kuwaiti" and not Arab Kuwaitis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.63.26 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another IP mentioned that Ilikecod (talk) 14:00, 28 May 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, →B music ian 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demographics of Kuwait – The article makes no assertion that the Kuwaiti arabs are a particular ethnic group; they're just arab people living in Kuwait. In fact the article no longer says anything of interest and it is completely redundant with Demographics of Kuwait. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RJH. Almost everything in this article has a "citation needed" tag attached. The article can be re-created when sourced information is available. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "This article is a mess" is not a criterion for deletion. "This article is completely unsourced" is not a criterion for deletion. Nom has not made any case for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently redirect as above; there is almost no content and the topic fits better into the main article for now. Sandstein 08:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Richards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

High school record-setting athlete, well-referenced as such, but we hitherto have not usually been willing to accept success at that level as notability. A previously-deleted article about a person of the same name is about someone else entirely DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of the article, two years ago, I first must ask WHEN the first deletion of this article was made? But beyond that, as the National High School Record holder for 14 Years, under WP:NSPORT or any other guideline, how can you possibly say this individual is not notable? We have an entire article, yes also of my creation, that has the complete list of High School National Record holders. Certainly all the individuals who achieved said records also are notable, getting coverage well beyond local papers and basic statistics. But speaking of statistics, most frequently, the national record holder's name and mark sits above most meet results duplicated across the country. Brandon Richards was there for 14 years. To cast the doubt of notability against this lone article casts the entire subject into the same doubt. These record holders and their achievements have been tracked for the better part of a century, published in numerous articles. Trackinfo (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article that you have linked for the previous AfD, it is not about the same individual. Read Martial Arts and State of Washington in the discussion. You have completely misdirected this AfD. I urge a speedy conclusion to this folly. Trackinfo (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the mistake was when I put this up for CSD after seeing that an article by the same name was deleted shortly before this article was created and because I thought this individual also failed all notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't come close to meeting the notability criteria at WP:NSPORTS#Athletics/track & field and long-distance running and his only other claim to notability is being the son of an Olympic gold medalist (WP:NOTINHERITED). Being the 10th best pole vaulter in UCLA history or a high school state champion does not meet any notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You entirely missed the point. He was the National Record holder, both indoors (for about a year) and outdoors (for 14 years). Out of the millions of high school kids who have participated in the sport, he was the best. That is an extremely notable achievement. For some junior level athletes, they may not make it to the Olympics a junior achievement was their peak, but it was a peak that made them exceptional. As a high school athlete, WP:NSPORTS points out, he is notable if he receives coverage "as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." The article already contains coverage from the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Track and Field News and Dyestat. The last two are the major national media within the sport. On the general principle of WP:GNG that should have already sufficed. I will now have to lard up the article with further wide coverage. This AfD goes to the point of the statement I make on my own user page. If you do not understand the subject you are talking about, you have no business suggesting articles about that subject be deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add a full article in People Magazine, mentions in the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, ESPN Rise, Getty Images, the Lubbock paper when the record was broken 14 years later, the Santa Barbara local paper recalling the mark this year, 27 years later. We are now at 20 sources, national publications, coast to coast, north and south. Need I go on further? Trackinfo (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes the general notability guideline by having achieved "significant coverage", i.e. "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --OhioStandard (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet notability guidelines to me. LATimes, Chicago Tribune etc...Capitalismojo (talk) 16:52, 28 May 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, →B music ian 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the light of WP:BLP, an article that begins "... is an alleged cannibal" would need to have more and well-argued support to be kept. Sandstein 08:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kinyua[edit]

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

It provides no additional information and from what I'm told Wikipedia is not the news. Sparticus88 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree that Wikipedia is not the news, also WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E would seem to apply. Shearonink (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Not news does not apply as most articles about murder/crime is built on news.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Delete as well. This is a BLP1E - specifically, a biography of a person only known because he's suspected of a crime - which means we should be reluctant about keeping it. And in contrast to Luka Magnotta, to name another suspected criminal recently kept at AFD, I don't think he's received the level of international media attention to clearly pass the notability test. If this article is kept, it should be renamed to Murder of Kujoe Bonsafo Agyei-Kodie and focused on the crime, not the suspect. Robofish (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenters don't appear to be very familiar with the subject. There are allegations of multiple crimes. The fact that the suspect was released on bail following a brutal attack with a baseball bat is a major feature of the case and a source of controversy. Like the Virginia Tech shooting there are questions about how this troubled individual was handled by various authorities, family and friends. The case is receiving ample coverage. The aspect of cannibalism also makes it particularly notable. The suspect is already being grouped with other famous cannibals. It's unfortunate that there has been a rush to delete this subject of obvious and enduring psychological, law enforcement, educational institution interest so soon after the article was started. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York Mets no-hitters[edit]

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

A list with one entry? That strikes me as overkill; redundant to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters, for instance. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Johan Santana's no-hit game or a similar title and leave a redirect Regardless of whether it is overkill or not, it follows the precedent set to have articles or links to other teams' no-hit lists (For example, List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters). As such, I would feel more comfortable leaving something at that title until a general ruling is made on all team no-hit lists. But as it has only a single entry, the article should be written to favor Johan's accomplishment, which many sources either likely exist already or likely will within the next 24-48 hours. In 100 years or so, when the Mets have 3-4 no-hitters like most other ballclubs have, we could turn it back into a list p b p 05:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the list would forever stand at one entry, then yes, it'd be overkill. But there is the potential for this list to expand, and since there is a list for each team's no-hitters, setting an arbitrary number of entries necessary for the page to be created seems like overkill. Not creating a page because there aren't any no-hitters makes sense; not creating a page because there aren't ENOUGH no-hitters seems a bit confusing. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "One" is not so arbitrary. Enumeration has lots of things to say about set theory and what not, but the examples in the OED entry for list (n. 6) are all in the plural. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article List of Tampa Bay Rays no-hitters also only has one entry. I also agree there is potential for expansion. Richiekim (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the articles List of Toronto Blue Jays no-hitters, List of Milwaukee Brewers no-hitters and List of Colorado Rockies no-hitters also have one entry. Should we delete those articles as well?Richiekim (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure: go ahead and nominate them. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IF there is a list for each team, this one is justifiable. Maybe someone needs to create one for the San Diego Padres, just in case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists can have only one entry and can add more entries as time goes on. Lists can naturally have at least one entry. This is like a birthday list with only one gift listed. We're entering the era of no-hitters so lists will expand faster than a lot of people would think. Planet Star 22:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this discussion be expanded to deleting all no hitter team articles with only one entry? BUC (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All team lists of no-hitters are redundant to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters, so this argument logically requires deleting them all. There is nothing wrong with a list with one entry if we accept the relevance and existence of individual team lists (which seems unquestioned). --Threephi (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PlanetStar, mostly, but also because within the article there is scope for a secondary list of the multiple near misses, which would avoid the issue of having a list article with only one entry; in that case the main list would be only one entry but there would also be a secondary list with more. Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does sound strange to have a list of one, but a club's history of no-hitters receives lots of coverage to meet WP:GNG. In the case of the Mets, the near no-hitter are also large part of the topic. Even the San Diego Padres, who have zero no-hitters, could have an article on their near misses based on the number of times it gets mentioned in the press. Rename the article if needed, but some topic on Mets no-hitters is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Languages Department[edit]

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

Non-notable university language department. Name is too generic for a valid redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this department meets the Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. It is already covered - albeit as a one-line entry - at Mordovian State University. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mordovian State University Bleakgh (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator that the name is too generic for a redirect. Disagree with Bleakgh about a merge; the target article already mentions the various departments, but adding all this information about one department would be be WP:UNDUE coverage out of balance with the rest of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) →TSU ^tp* 03:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Bones[edit]

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

Previously deleted here four years ago, and coverage remains the same. Only a couple of passing mentions and local university coverage for this rivalry, 10 direct Google News hits. No indication of meeting WP:GNG Delete Secret ^account 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Most other rivalries on List of college football rivalries have their own page) Bleakgh (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid reason for keeping the article, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secret ^account 22:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet the threshhold of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is how? Secret ^account 05:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though possibly rename to "UAB-Memphis rivalry" or something similar. I think that the rivalry itself is notable, but the name appears to be infrequently used, and only with regard to the football rivalry, not the (higher profile) basketball rivalry. cmadler (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rivalry appears mentioned enough in reliable, indepedent sources to at least support the standalone list of results per WP:LISTN, which makes it moot whether or not the article supports WP:GNG, which I think is borderline. Offline articles may exist as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - the nomination was withdrawn with no outstanding 'delete' !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central New Brunswick Academy[edit]

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

school is listed in school district article and nothing here notable. WP:WPSCH/AG#N Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Street Middle School, Central New Brunswick Academy, and Devon Middle School are all middle schools in New Brunswick School District 18 and as such could probably be considered together. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat lector- Central New Brunswick Academy says it's also a high school. Dru of Id (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school (Grades 6-12) as stated at http://cnba.nbed.nb.ca/schoolprofile Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:GNG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. TerriersFan (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw As this is a 6-12 school, it should be kept and I would like to withdraw this nomination at this time. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Umar Ko Salaam[edit]

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

Some non-notable TV serial. The article claims that it was planned to air but was never actually aired. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFF states the following: "Films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." No episodes of this show were ever broadcast, and I don't see any sources that indicate anything notable about its cancellation. NJ Wine (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Skoutelas[edit]

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

Seems like a competent person, but hardly noteworthy (top 1% or 5%) in his field. Scant material. Out of 3 citations, 2 are local. The third is just a directory listing. No awards from governors or presidents. No publications of his own. Probably a nice person. Just not notable. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was the chief of not one but two major transit agencies. In Orlando he was credited with turning around/modernizing/making relevant their agency. If that is not noteworthy, cool but there are tons of bio articles on similar transit chiefs that should also be going . . . not to mention the two I added information for that others created that also led the Pittsburgh agency. MarketDiamond 04:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Please do initiate Afds on anyone whose credentials are this thin. I realize that there are dozens, even hundreds of bios, where the standards have dropped to nearly zero for an article. Musicians, for example. See WP:BIO. Student7 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (just for the record) . . . first, as far as notability you kind of have to be somebody in the USA to lead not one but two different major transit agencies for close to a decade each, he was contracted to stay in Pittsburgh for 2 additional years but got a better offer $$$ in the private sector. Not really sure about awards from presidents, not really sure if a Franklin Pierce or a James Buchanan have any more notability then a Skoutelas really. As far as going into the lions den 1,000 plus times on wikipedia and challenging bios in fields I don't understand I'd be happy to form a group for that, I feel that the status quo weeds out almost all frivolous bios, if we want to raise standards I think we are gonna get into an Orlando Lynx v. New York MTA and a Pittsburgh Port Authority v San Fran BART, contributing mainly to Pittsburgh entries I can tell you there is a regional bias among some editors (deletors). Happy to see thats not at work here but try telling someone from San Fran or Manhattan that although Pittsburgh transit chiefs aren't notable that makes the MTA and BART chiefs just as un-notable. Also Allen Biehler (since 2009) and William Millar (since 2006) seemed to be notable to other editors who created those pages on similar standards of notability. Not trying to justify non notability with other non notability, just pointing out that wikipedia does not normally let someone with thin notability have an article for the last six years, Q.E.D. Skoutelas is notable. MarketDiamond 10:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hundreds of potential sources at GNews and GBooks, including this one from the Orlando Sentinel that makes the notability case quite succinctly, opening as follows: "While in Central Florida, Paul Skoutelas may have been one of the highest profile transit bosses in the country. He arrived in 1991, inheriting a transit agency that few people could name and even fewer rode. So he did TV commercials, spoke at chicken dinners and painted his fleet in pinks and teals and other decidedly un-buslike colors. By the time he left in 1997, Lynx was well known in Central Florida, and ridership levels had doubled. Skoutelas was profiled in the Wall Street Journal, and Lynx was named one of the top transit companies in the country."[15] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains multiple independent sources about Paul Skoutelas, and I was easily able to find more.[16],[17]. Paul Skoutelas definitely meets Wikipedia's individual notability guidelines. NJ Wine (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Atheist Experience[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is remarkably short on reliable, relevant sources. We have:

Plainly, about 90% of these can be discarded without much further discussion. The rest doesn't amount to much — a few disparate mentions in vaguely reliable sources don't constitute the "significant coverage" mandated by WP:GNG. And no, a newspaper or a website conferring an award does not necessarily imply notability — we don't have articles on every restaurant, nightclub or hair salon so honored, and we shouldn't have one on this show, unless demonstrably significant coverage turns up. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gotta get ready for work and don't have time to comb the internets, but I will point out that the so-called "puff piece in a local newspaper reprinted by an activist site" is actually significant coverage from the Austin American-Statesman, the leading mainstream newspaper in Texas's capital city, and that's one reliable source in a defense here. Agreed that most of the links you cite don't pass muster in an AfD debate, which is not to say they are inappropriate to use. The two Austin Chronicle awards also should have a little bit of clout in an examination here. I'm definitely leaning towards the Keep end of the spectrum, just on that. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A very substantial web footprint, but mostly freethought blogs. A good redirect or merge target might be Matt Dillahunty. Carrite (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Your representation of some of the sources are quite the understatement. Allow me to comment on your depiction of a few sources a bit.

'A Gallup poll': research by The Gallup Organization
'Another poll': research by the American Religious Identification Survey
'Another poll': research by the Pew Research Center
'A puff piece in a local newspaper reprinted by an activist site': article by the Austin American-Statesman (daily circulation 151,000 - Sundays 186,000), reposted by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website.
'An article on public-access TV that makes passing mention of the show': Article is written by PBS and the whole 'TV Offers Different Interactivity' section of http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/12/public-access-tv-fights-for-relevance-in-the-youtube-age352.html is about TAE.
'A website announcing the show won a reader poll' (2x): won twice, awarded by about.com
'A newspaper award' (2x): won twice, awarded by The Austin Chronicle (230,000 readers)
'A professor's homepage': website of particle physicist Victor J. Stenger

All in all, TAE doesn't nearly belong in the category of 'every restaurant, nightclub or hair salon' as you put it. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see WP:COATRACK. Yes, a Gallup or Pew poll is probably citable; that is not the issue. The problem is that they do not talk about The Atheist Experience, and so are not that relevant, contextually, to the topic at hand.

I agree, these polls are not there to support WP:NOTABILITY, but to support claims about demographics. However, in your opening statement you brought up the case "Plainly, about 90% of these can be discarded without much further discussion", mentioning a few of these sources. Therefore, I had to reply. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The Austin American-Statesman piece may or may not bolster a claim of notability, but it's simply a bad idea to link to it as hosted on an activist website. Just like we wouldn't link to a New York Times article hosted by Stormfront at Race and ethnicity in the United States, or wouldn't link to a Wall Street Journal article hosted by the North American Man/Boy Love Association site in the Pederasty article, this too is inappropriate.

Unfortunatelly the article is not available online on it's original printer's website, so I had to go with republished material. I do think you should refrain from equating the Richard Dawkins Foundation with questionable parties like Stormfront and NAMBLA, because it helps neither your argument nor this discussion. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "equate" the one with the other, except in trying to show what kinds of sites we should avoid quoting. But fine then, let's bring up something less objectionable and liken it to citing the websites of National Right to Life Committee or NARAL Pro-Choice America at Opposition to the legalization of abortion. The point is, one doesn't generally cite activist sites in articles related to their field. Sources should be objective. And regardless of who's reprinting it, the piece itself is anything but: "Dillahunty may have been destined for this."; "His voice is calm, patient"; "He still wants to save people" are not straight news reporting. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- No matter how notable Stenger may be as a physicist and as a critic of religion, WP:SELFPUB comes into play when one cites his homepage. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going with WP:SELFPUB, I think we're OK, because it was only citing his presence at the show. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only WP:RS about the show I can find is the local coverage in the Austin American-Statesman and The Austin Chronicle noted above, which isn't enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added four more sources

Benedictine University explains the peer reviewing process using a TAE segment.^[4]
Matt Dillahunty (ACA president and TAE main host) debating at the West Texas A&M University^[5]
Dillahunty debating at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County^[6]
University Star - Dillahunty speaking in support of the Secular Student Alliance^[7] --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A random video saying nothing about TAE, a student newspaper article, another video attesting nothing (except that a TAE host once gave a speech) and a university press release. Overall, pretty weak. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those sources demonstrate notability for Matt Dillahunty, but not for this TV show. -- 202.124.72.61 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I not only find this notable, but several (though not all) of the sources do indeed seem to qualify it for notability.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on sources listed in the article. Most are not reliable, but enough are. The Steve 06:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article useful & would recommend it be kept. I have my suspicions as to why the article has been nominated for deletion. God is not mocked -- his followers see to that :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touristupdate (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough reliable sources there. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have plenty of reliable sources, but they're not about the show, except for the two local newspaper sources. -- 202.124.72.227 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By no means a strong case but it does seem that this article subject rises to the level of public significance and media footprint necessary to connote notability. Benefit of the doubt... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Systems_visualization[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Systems visualization (2nd nomination)

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

The author of this article is using this page as a means to legitimize a "new" field for which there is not yet any reliable, published sources. What the author does here is synthesize a variety of sources in an attempt to produce original research. The academic papers linked from this article all discuss visualization, but none discuss "systems visualization" (with the exception of the Rivet project, which uses the phrasing "computer systems visualization" but in no way engages with the definition described in the article.") Many of the sources are simply listings for a course taught by Shiva Ayyadurai at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A Google search of this professor shows that he has made other controversial claims about inventing technologies such as e-mail, and the only other sites I can locate on "systems visualization" seem to be operated by this professor. Ohiovis (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term has no real meaning and appears to be WP:MADEUP. Definitely no evidence of sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy (for a short time). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulcrum (magazine)[edit]

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

Student-run publication with no third party reliable sources and no notability. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources and revised the article's text in line with Wiki standards. --Jackself87 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any notability and the article's creator appears to be one of the founders of the magazine. People looking for sources be should aware that there are many other magazines called "fulcrum". Dricherby (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added categories to speficy the type of magazine. This is my first article and I thought to do something I am familiar with, could someone assist me in making this article appropriate for Wiki? Many thanks. --Jackself87 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding notability, a quick check on any of the referenced architects' Wiki entries will show that they are amongst the best known in the world. --Jackself87 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something you're familiar with is good but try to avoid cases like this, where there's a conflict of interest. I agree that some of Fulcrum's contributors are highly notable but that alone doesn't establish notability of the magazine: WP:NOTINHERITED. I've not found any notability guidelines specific to magazines but, in general, notability means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Things like reviews of the magazine, discussions of it in the architectural or even general press are needed. Having articles reprinted by other publications is great for Fulcrum but doesn't establish notability of the magazine: it just shows that the reprinted article was of a high quality. If you can find sources that establish notability, then add them to the article but, aside from that, I'd recommend that you step back from editing it any further because of the conflict of interest. Dricherby (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help, how can I request to have this article shifted as per Wikipedia:Userfication (i.e. moved to my sandbox?). --Jackself87 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't be userfied at the moment because it's under AfD but you can !vote to userfy. (Just add a line *'''userfy''' to the bottom of the discussion, give a reason and sign it. Dricherby (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a weak article but 1) it's been running for a year, 2) they have notable contributors, 3) they've been reviewed/reprinted in other professional journals. As to the conflict of interest, WP:COI does not state that an editor can't edit article with which s/he has COI. It just states that the COI should be publicly noted and that the editor should do their best to be objective. Maybe Jackself87 should look at Wikipedia:Amnesia test but I don't feel he needs to disavow from the article. Joe407 (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Joe 407. --SeanMcG (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable third party sources, unable to find anything that remotely approached meeting notability standards. The notability of its contributors is not inherited, and the fact that it has been published for only a year also points toward deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed Housing Technology[edit]

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

Non notable product. Also, the article seems to be written as an advertisement. It does not show notability. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appear to be an advertisement as you said and the user is a new user, and may be attempting to promote the product. Searching the title using a search engine mainly only find content uploaded by the company. I think this article should either be deleted or completely re-written. Ziiike (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Spam. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari SP12 EC[edit]

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

Non-notable vehicle which appears to be a modification of the notable Ferrari 458 Italia. No references provided. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lack of refernces in the article is not grounds for deletion; AfD is not for cleanup. Although based on the 458 Italia, this is a distinct model of its own (it's no different than, say, the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager - same chassis and kit) and it meets the WP:GNG. References added to the article accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ferrari 458 Italia, since it is so short. It can be made into a separate article if it grows. Dew Kane (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The length of an article is not a reason to delete or merge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Car is not a sub-creation of a model. While the article may be pretty lousy, it still gives important information even as a stub and only needs a fair use picture or something and some specs. Other special cars like Blastolene Special are also very unique, but need more attention and information. We cannot go merging articles on cars simply because another model exists, it is a unique creation and is a one-off car, if anything it should be mentioned on Eric Clapton's page instead if you HAD to merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OSF.8759[edit]

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

The text seems to be paraphrased close to the source and I think that it's a copyright violation. Also the article doesn't seems that notable, as it's all about an obscure linux virus. _→AzaToth 20:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing that makes this notable. I at least expected trivial mentions in Google Books, but there was nothing. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) →TSU ^tp* 08:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ou[edit]

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

struggling to see how this passes Wikipedia's notability guide Wikipedia:Notability (people) with no reliable third party sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When creating this article a number of months ago, I researched heavily around the subject and also Kevin Ou. Without discussing OR, it was evident to me that he was notable and that a page on him should be created. He has won numerous awards, some of which are from APA showing that his peers think highly of him. Not to mention the actors & music artists he has photographed, which can be seen here on his portfolio. For those of you who aren't very good at recognising people, the artists include people such as 50 Cent, Justin Bieber, Snoop Dogg and Chris Brown. For this reason I believe he easily passes the WP:CREATIVE criteria. He has also appeared on MTV's Starmaker as a guest photographer. This show aired worldwide, so without summarising they aren't going to choose any run of the mill photographer. He appears on the video here. JP22Wiki (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: These days celebs seem to be endlessly photographed: photographing celebs doesn't make you notable (or even a celeb). Has Ou's work been discussed? Or have there been exhibitions of his work, or photobooks of it? -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ou's work has been discussed, with FHM, Wall Street Journal (Blog), iStockPhoto, The New Paper & Featureshoot. There are more around if more references are needed. His work has been displayed (according to numerous sources) at galleries in both Los Angeles & New York. He has also worked with a number of corporate companies, such as BMW, Mercedes, Lego & Bulgari, which can be seen here under advertisement on his own website here. Sadly none of these refer to where they were published, but a number of articles discuss his work appeared in Rolling Stone & Vogue Magazine. I'm sure if a much deeper search was carried out the examples of this work could be found. JP22Wiki (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched around and cannot find any significant media coverage on this person and the few sources currently in the article are weak.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out above, his work has been discussed at FHM (although this copy happens to be illegible), a blog at Wall Street Journal, and Featureshoot. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG:

Articles from Singapore Press Holdings Ltd, a Southeast Asian media organization that publishes 18 newspaper titles in four languages:

Asia One: Made it in America
The New Paper: Fiona Xie models for charity campaign

The Wall Street Journal (Newsblog): Why Luck Matters in Photography
FHM Magazine: Kevin Ou

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The significant coverage from the likes of AsiaOne and other news outlets suggests a notability of this subject, however the article is still in much need of work. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources found as noted above, he's clearly notable. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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